Linux-Advocacy Digest #441, Volume #32 Sat, 24 Feb 01 04:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Windows guy. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Windows guy. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Into the abyss... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:02:12 GMT
Said Seán Ó Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 23 Feb 2001
>[...]My point is that the
>hardest part of doing the right thing on either platform is not the
>following of conventions, but the compatibility testing. Unix makes that no
>easier than Windows, and without perfect compatibility testing (which is
>often impossible), neither OS guarantees success. Therefore, saying that
>Unix has somehow solved this problem is ridiculous.
The premise is not, however, that Unix has "somehow solved" this problem
(although it has); the premise is that Windows has not (and it has not.)
Whether "Unix", as an OS, a technical interface for library and
application developers, makes anything "easier", is also not the issue.
The fact is, Windows not only makes it harder, it makes it impossible.
You are correct that it {might|would} require adherence to convention
for either to work, but the fact is that Unix works, and Windows
doesn't, in this regard, regardless of whether Windows has this putative
capability for dealing with the problem which somehow just never gets
used, darn-it.
[...]
>> UNIX sufficiently stringly encourages people to do thr ight thing that
>> they all do.
>
>All of them? All Unix programmers have always done the right thing and they
>always will? Shared library screwups have never happened, and will never
>happen? Are you sure you want to make that claim, Peter?
Enough of them to make your argument specious; how's that?
[...]
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:07:31 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 23 Feb 2001
>"Klaus-Georg Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Contrast that with the situation in Windows, where every app dumps
>> their DLLs in system32.
>
>Wrong, applications are supposed to put their shared libraries in \Program
>Files\Common Files\<Company Name>\
Well, none do. Almost univerally, the want to install everything,
shared libraries and executables, including data files, et. al, in
\Progra~1\<Company Name>. So now what?
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:02:28 GMT
In article <976ciu$drc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Yes, it's wrong to do that, but it's also wrong that you think this
> is what is happening.
That one application does it is wrong enough!
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:06:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > >Because in a well-designed system, crashing apps don't harm the OS.
> >
> > Then why does forking child processes ad infinitum bring Linux to its
> > knees (assuming no limits)?
>
> Because UNRESTRAINED, infinite resource consumption will bring ANY
> O/S to it's knees, you idiot.
Oh pillock, you were the one that claim crashing apps don't harm the OS.
> > Then why does loading a 130MByte text file into the Advanced Text Editor
> > make Linux go into massive paging?
>
> Because that's how virtual memory works when your working set greatly
> exceeds physical memory.
>
> Again, that's a "natural law", and has nothing to do with Linux.
Again, you made the claim that crashing apps don't harm the OS. Oh look,
the system is dead!
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:08:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> >>Because in a well-designed system, crashing apps don't harm the OS.
> >
> >Then why does forking child processes ad infinitum bring Linux to its
> >knees (assuming no limits)?
>
> Of course, if you let users use all the resources, then they can use all
> the resources. You're making an entirely circular argument.
>
> A well designed system doesn't make it impossible for users to use
> all resources, it makes it possible to prevent it.
Unfortunately, the default on Linux Mandrake is to have no limits.
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:11:37 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:59:49 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On 22 Feb 2001 23:53:38 GMT, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> >Morality can be justified on a variety of grounds, some of them purely
> >> >secular, as evidenced by the fact that both religious and secular
> >> >belief systems tend to come to very similar conclusions at least on
> >> >the more important points.
> >>
> >> That still doesn't address the issue of religiously motivated
> >
> >For example, the environmentalist movement.
>
> Irrational perhaps, but religously motivated is a bit of a stretch.
They worship trees and rocks and animals.
They may not call them "gods", but they treat them as deities
every much as the Hindus treat cows as deities.
>
> >
> >
> >> public policy. If the policy is not ultimately theocratic,
> >> then a secular motivation should be trivially available.
> [deletia]
>
> Earth is a production system and we don't have a backup.
It's extremely robust.
Anybody who says "Save the planet" has an INCREDIBLY over-inflated opinion
of how much power humans have.
In the 1950's, it was proposed that a hurricane could be broken
up by dropping an H-bomb into it. Then some meteorologists did
a very simple estimate of the energy output of a hurricane, and
discovered that a typical hurrican dissipates energy at a rate
of a few hundred H-Bombs / second.
Man is literally incapable of anything more significant than
scratching the surface.
Look at what happens to abandoned buildings, even in urban areas.
Unless made of stone, they are utterly dilapidated within only
a few years.
>
> --
>
> Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
>
> That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
> |||
> / | \
--
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: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Into the abyss...
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:12:33 GMT
In article <976c8b$b3r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Since I develop audio device drivers, I have to install them long before
> > the "signed driver" feature is available. However, it can be overridden
> > and it certainly isn't as hard as you make it out to be.
> >
>
> No, it is quite simple to do, I agree.
>
> That it exists at all was quite jarring for someone who knew what he was
> doing, and suddenly had his OS tell him, "Um.. no." That first, it needed to
> be signed by Microsoft, BUT this "protection" feature could be disabled.
It's even better when the system tells you the device driver is not
designed for the device - and I wrote the damn thing!
> > I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Windows ME and later have added
> > features to prevent you trashing system files, but I don't see that "it
> > assumes it knows more than you" and acts accordingly.
>
> Those new "features" suddenly made it diffiucult to run certain versions of
> Norton AV to clean up a "system" file that was infected. Even though the
> virus was able to overwrite said system file, Norton was not allowed to
> overwrite it and clean it because it was an incompatible version with ME's
> system-protection feature.
You were making a blanket statement, now I see what you mean.
> I simply do not see the merits to "value-added features" that force you to
> have to "upgrade" your other software just to run on that new platform.
They added a kludge to get round a basic problem on Windows. Installing
applications can replace system files, sometimes with older ones with
disastrous results.
> rm * will not erase everything. The so-called "system protection" feature
> for Windows was added long after UNIX had already had the same kind of
> protection for years. Unless you were root/had root access you simply could
> not completely hose a UNIX machine with a simple command or an accidental
> mouse-click.
I meant as root. Watch your system die as root!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:20:43 -0500
Byron A Jeff wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:58:52 -0500, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> >>
> >> >Wrong...Because the Demoncrook party has ALWAYS been in the business of
> >> >protecting the financial interests of the socio-economic elite in this
> >> >country.
> >>
> >> That's why Bush's plan primarily benefits the richest 1%, right ? And it's
> >
> >
> >
> >Wrong, on three counts.
>
> Aaron,
>
> A long time ago we agreed to disagree on this subject. However I can't
> resist responding.
>
> >
> >
> >First:
> >Suppose you earned $2,000,000 this year...putting you into the
> >top 0.1% of income. Would that mean that you are one of the
> >top 0.1% richest people in the country?
>
> Nope. It's the difference between total net worth and total net/gross income
> for one year.
>
Thank you for conceding my point.
> To clarify: B. Gates would be one of the richest people in the world even if
> he never earned another dime in his lifetime.
>
> Point taken.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Come on...you have a strong, math background, worthy of someon
> >
> >Clue for the clueless. The slope of a curve is NOT the same
> >thing as the area beneath it.
> >
> >This is why SALES TAXES are far more ethical than income taxes.
>
> Here's the problem with sales taxes (which by definition taxes one's
> consumption instead of one's income): its normally presented as a flat tax.
> Its regressiveness impacts the folks with the least disposable income the
> most.
So is the price of bread in the store.
Here's the rule:
If you are productive, you get to buy more.
>
> If you proffered a progressive sales tax, I might bite:
>
> 1) All sales tax on the first X dollars spent exempted.
> 2) Sales tax becomes steeper as you spend more total dollars.
> 3) Luxury taxes on items over a certain amount.
> 4) No income or capital gains taxes.
Fuck that. Once again, you're penalizing those who work for the
benefit of those who mooch.
>
> This might work. One is taxed on what one spends, and one is taxed more as
> one spends more. No tax at all unless you spend it.
>
> Might work.
What part of NO MOOCHERS do you not understand?
>
> >
> >Second:
> >Under Bush's plan, the top wage earners STILL pay the higest tax rates.
>
> Not really relevant for two reasons:
>
> 1) Lots of tax loopholes.
> 2) The resulting disposable income is still significant.
>
> Go back to your $2,000,000 income earner. Even after paying the top 28%
> tax, the over $1 million is disposable income is infinitely more than
> the thousands of $50000 earners who has little or no disposable income yet
> are still being taxed.
>
> That's why I kind of like the progressive sales tax, because it can target
> those with the most disposable income. Also it'll spur savings/investing
> across the board because those dollars won't be taxed.
>
> >
> >
> >Third:
> >
> >Do you have some particular problem with tax-relief being proportional
> >to how much taxes a person pays?
>
> Yes. You knew that was coming.
>
> Like many Democrats, I do believe in income redistribution.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You misspelled Government-sponsered THEFT.
> Forced charity
> is probably what you'd call it.
If it's not volountary, it's not charity.
> I believe in it because income and net worth
> acquistion isn't fair.
Says who?
If you want to make more money, you are free to seek a whatever
form of work pays a higher income.
> I know you believe that if you work hard, you'll become
> rich, or at least comfortable. Those who do not or are incapable of raising
> their standard of living you have labeled as lazy or stupid in the past. But
Other than the disabled, do you disagree?
> we are not all born into the same circumstance. We don't all have the
So what?
Life's not fair. And it never will be.
Deal with it.
> opportunity to be that $2,000,000 earner, or Mark Cuban, or Gates. We don't
> all get a chance to inherit, like a Rockerfeller. Many of the richest
You don't seem to understand...the current system KEEPS the Rockefeller
clan in power for FAR longer than would a sales-taxed based system.
> people in the world became that way be being married to, family of, or
> children to someone who built the fortune. They got all the benefit without
> doing the hard work. Income/asset acquisition isn't fair, not by a long shot.
Let me work and KEEP MY MONEY, free to INVEST IT UNTAXED...and TAX
***ONLY*** that which I take from society (i.e. what I use up => sales tax).
QUIT TAXING ME FOR WHAT I ***CONTRIBUTE**** TO SOCIETY.
>
> So yes I do believe that taxation according to disposable income, or net worth
> should in fact be a bit unfair. so as to provide benefit to the maximum number
> of people, instead of benefitting a select few, who in fact need the benefit
> the least.
>
> So I do have a problem with any equal taxation (flat rate). Through exemption,
> proportial taxation, and targeted refunds there should always be a positive
> flow of dollars from those with the highest disposable income to those with
> little or no disposable income. I could agree with the sales tax outlined
> above for example. But unless the $2 million earner either saves, invests,
> or gives money to charity, they'll be taxed and the benefit will go to
> folks who don't/won't make $2 million over their whole lifetime.
>
> If you take $10000 away from a $2 million earner or a $2 billion net worth,
> there's barely a drop, much less a ripple. However take that $10000 away from
> someone earning $26500 a year and watch the devestating impact.
>
> It's about disposable income Aaron. Those who have it should give. Those
> who don't should get help. It ain't fair in your world view. But life isn't
> fair. Which is exactly my point.
The only fair tax is every able-bodied adult pays the EXACT SAME AMOUNT.
>
> BAJ
--
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: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:22:57 -0500
Byron A Jeff wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:14:47 -0500, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> >>2. Death Taxes are the LEADING cause of failure for businesses
> >>that last more than 10 years....not to mention an INCREDIBLE burden
> >>upon farming families.
> >
> >Must be very well-to-do "farming families". What's the threshold again ?
> >IIRC you don't pay a cent unless you're a millionaire.
>
> I did want to address this one point. The problem with many farms is the
> disparity between the net worth of the farm vs. its yearly income. It
> becomes an issue of a farm being worth more dead than alive.
>
> Consider the situation where the farm is valued at $2 million because of
> the land, stock, and equipment. However the farm only generates $75000 a year.
> Millionare on paper, ordinary guy in reality.
>
> The owner dies. Two equally horrible outcomes ensues:
>
> 1) The family goes into debt to pay the estate tax. One bankrupt family.
>
> 2) The family sells the farm and pays the tax. They cannot buy another farm
> with the resulting cash. One dead farm, and one displaced family.
>
> What the family probably wanted was to simply continue to own the farm and work
> it, making the $75000 a year. But that dream is gone.
>
> Now dropping the estate tax isn't the way to solve the problem either. Then you
> get the situation where billions of dollars get passed from one estate to
> another completely untaxed.
>
> Better would be a system where the tax only comes due in a couple of
> situations:
>
> 1) The estate is in fact sold. You liquidate within 5-10 years of death, you
> pay the tax.
> 2) The estate is worth enough that it can withstand the tax hit. This
> probably need to be computed using a mix of actual worth and income potential.
> But it isn't cut and dried. Raising the estate limit could serve the same
> purpose. Say $15 million or so. A $15 million farm could be sold, taxed and
> the proceeds used to buy another farm. Or it could be determined that the
> $15 million valuation only returns $350k a year which isn't enough income
> to support the tax hit. Like I said, it's fuzzy.
>
> In this new situation, the family simply keeps and works the farm, which is
> what they wanted to do anyway.
>
> But what something's worth isn't the same as what it can earn. That's where
> the problem occurs.
>
Correct. The current system FAVORS "fat cat" developers because it
forces the heirs to sell the property at below-market value (because
developers *all* know the the heirs *MUST* sell the land and pay the
taxes by April 15.
> BAJ
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
