Linux-Advocacy Digest #468, Volume #32 Sun, 25 Feb 01 12:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Paul Repacholi)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Chad Myers")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Lawrence Kirby)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Lawrence Kirby)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Lawrence Kirby)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Gregory Pietsch)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Hilter Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (mlw)
WARNING - SSH HAS REALLY SECURITY FLAWS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111 ("Markus G")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Ian Woods)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? ("Brett I. Holcomb")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. ("Tor Rustad")
Re: M$ doing it again! (mlw)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (Bob Hauck)
Re: RTFM at M$ (Bob Hauck)
Re: RTFM at M$ (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
From: Paul Repacholi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 25 Feb 2001 22:31:08 +0800
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Of course the workers would have to access the system to enter data,
> > etc, so the user interfaces can't be too complicated (GUI?).
>
> Your workers would know how to use a web browser, so why not make the
> inventory system accessible through any web browser? The MySQL database
> and PHP scripting language would be a good combination for this task.
Never worked in afactory have you? How long will the mouse keep working
after it has been grabbed by a paint/glue/oil... covered hand?
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: 25 Feb 2001 15:12:09 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Ask any 10 computer owners on the street what OS they want to use. What do
: you think most of them will say?
One that doesn't CRASH!!!!!!!!
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:24:37 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > Is this how security is treated in the Open Source realm? With
> > childish insults and assinine comments and no real concern?
>
> You've shown no concern, so this wouldn't apply.
>
> Trolls and bozos are treated as such.
<sigh> You ignore obvious facts so that you can get in a personal
insult.
I have shown nothing but concern. In fact, the only reason I still
post to this thread is because I'm concerned that there are thousands
of people out there happily using SSH1 and are completely unaware
that it is "fundamentally flawed".
Whereas some of the creaters are just immature jerks.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence Kirby)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:10:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <9791qg$5aa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Bloody Viking" writes:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>: In short, radians are more often used in mathematics. Radians do have
>: some useful properties, particularly in keeping formulae simple (eg the
>: area of a segment of a circle is rT, where r is the radius and T is the
>: angle in radians subtended at the centre, if T is in degrees there is an
>: ugly constant involved)
>
>So, THAT'S why radians are used by high-end mathematicians. The "ugly
>constant" as you describe is the degrees to radians conversion constant, which
>will be pi/360. That feature of radians would be useful for orbital mechanics
>whereby at perigee the area of satellite motion and the planet's centre of
>gravity over a second will equal that area at apogee, so you can determine
>speed at the any point in an orbit if you know it at any one spot.
It is also very useful in many other areas of mathematics. Your observation
is not entirely unrelated to the fact that in calculus the differential of
sin(x) is cos(x), and the differential of cos(x) is -sin(x) when x is
measured in radians. Basically if you are a mathematician doing anything
nontrivial in this area you would be crazy to work with anything other
than radians.
As far as programming languages go thre are a couple of points
1. It is marginally easier to implement trig functions in radians than
in any other scale.
2. If the language works in radians then the program it may have to provide
conversions to othe scales on input and output. If the language works
in something else the program may have to apply correction factors
throughout its calculations. This is potentially much more significant
than 1.
>A fun factoid is that orbital mechanics was once called "celestial mechanics"
>but is now too useful to us Earthlings as we launch all manner of small
>functional "moons" to the point Earth has a ring 22,300 miles up.
>(geosynchronous orbit) Newton never figured that his "celectial mechanics"
>would be of _military_ significance. (spy sats)
I suspect that most spy satellites are in low orbit. You can see things
in much more detail from a couple of hundred miles up than you can
from 22000 miles.
--
=========================================
Lawrence Kirby | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wilts, England | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=========================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence Kirby)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:23:43 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Richard Heathfield" writes:
...
>Not just yet! :-)
>
>There are 2 pi radians in a full circle, so the conversion is pi /
>180.0:
>
>double deg_to_rad(double degrees)
>{
> return degrees * 3.14159265358979323846 / 180.0;
Although I'd prefer to write that as
return degrees * (3.14159265358979323846 / 180.0);
There's no point in forcing unnecessary runtime divisions.
>}
--
=========================================
Lawrence Kirby | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wilts, England | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=========================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence Kirby)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:26:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <979mmq$i3t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Edward Rosten" writes:
>> There are 2 pi radians in a full circle, so the conversion is pi /
>> 180.0:
>>
>> double deg_to_rad(double degrees)
>> {
>> return degrees * 3.14159265358979323846 / 180.0;
>> }
>
>
>It would be easier to use M_PIl as #defined in math.h
Any compiler that defines that or anything similar in a standard header
is in direct violation of the C standard.
--
=========================================
Lawrence Kirby | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wilts, England | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=========================================
------------------------------
From: Gregory Pietsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:57:35 GMT
Edward Rosten wrote:
> In article <979rsq$c3s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dan Pop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > In <979mmq$i3t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>> There are 2 pi radians in a full circle, so the conversion is pi /
> >>> 180.0:
> >>>
> >>> double deg_to_rad(double degrees)
> >>> {
> >>> return degrees * 3.14159265358979323846 / 180.0;
> >>> }
> >>
> >>It would be easier to use M_PIl as #defined in math.h
> >
> > <math.h> has no licence to define such a macro when the compiler is
> > invoked in conforming mode.
>
> Is there an official place where a definition of PI is meant to reside?
No.
Gregory Pietsch
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:55:21 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:51:57 +0000...
...and pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Your turn. (Extra Credit - name 2 Microsoft innovations.)
> >
> > Drop shadow mouse cursors!
> >
> > Fading menus!
>
> Ohhhh, actually I have one:
>
> Menu items that don't show up: in MS-office 2000
> if you click on the menu's - you (wait for it)
> don't see all the menu items! Yes - it is true -
> you have to physically move your mouse cursor down
> the menu - indicating that you'd like to "reveal" all
> the menu options.
>
> Obviously the programmers knew it was brain-dead
> as they have added the option to disable this default
> annoyance.
It's not a bad idea, but it's done in a thoroughly broken way. The
programs seem to keep some basic menu items always in the menu and
show or hide the others according to a most-recently-used algorithm.
That is, items not used for a couple of hours disappear; if you recall
them by clicking the arrow, they reappear and, again, stay for some
time. The order of the menu items always stays the same.
My solution to the problem of too many menu entries: Count clicks
(like MS does), sort the most frequently used ones at the top and the
least frequently used ones at the bottom, under a separator, and in a
smaller font maybe. Folding them away should be a last resort only.
Oh, and of course there should be a preferences entry to either
disable the behaviour completely or alternatively constrain the system
to keep some items always on top or always at the bottom.
mawa
--
Turnbeutelvergesser!
Milchtrinker!
Sitzpinkler!
Bild-der-Frau-Abonnierer!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,demon.local
Subject: Re: Hilter Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:33:32 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:02:08 -0500...
...and Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sounds like Chevrolet and the Nova in Spanish-speaking countries
>
> NOVA = "no va"
> no to go = doesn't go.
Though often cited, this alleged debacle of the Chevy Nova is an urban
legend. See snopes.com for more information.
mawa
--
7:30, Channel 5: The Bionic Dog (Action/Adventure)
The Bionic Dog gets a hormonal short-circuit and violates the
Mann Act with an interstate Greyhound bus.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:58:21 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sat, 24 Feb 2001 04:53:17 -0500...
...and Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is a specific, long-term agenda here...to turn as many people
> into 'convicted criminals' as possible.
Yeah. It's a conspiracy at work, as usual. Be sure to wear an
aluminium-foil inlay inside your hat the day the black helicopters
come and start covering your home town with mind control rays.
mawa
--
UNIX *doesn't* have a GUI. The Xwindows system is not part of UNIX. It
extends Unix to give graphical interface using a message interface.
Not local OS calls.
-- Ian St John
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:11:52 -0500
Lawrence Kirby wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Richard Heathfield" writes:
>
> ...
>
> >Not just yet! :-)
> >
> >There are 2 pi radians in a full circle, so the conversion is pi /
> >180.0:
> >
> >double deg_to_rad(double degrees)
> >{
> > return degrees * 3.14159265358979323846 / 180.0;
>
> Although I'd prefer to write that as
>
> return degrees * (3.14159265358979323846 / 180.0);
>
> There's no point in forcing unnecessary runtime divisions.
Actually, you should do it this way:
return (degrees * 3.14159265358979323846) / 180.0;
This will preserve more precision.
--
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
consistency.
-- Albert Einstein
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Markus G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: WARNING - SSH HAS REALLY SECURITY FLAWS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:30:36 +0100
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Vs9m6.9562$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have shown nothing but concern. In fact, the only reason I still
> post to this thread is because I'm concerned that there are thousands
> of people out there happily using SSH1 and are completely unaware
> that it is "fundamentally flawed".
As a matter of fact I recently found another security flaw in both SSH1 AND
SSH2. I don't have a good feeling about that, it really scares me... How can
these "programmers" ignore such a threat ? Here's the problem :
EVERYTHING you send to the server, and EVERYTHING he sends back to you can
be observed by ANY person who is in the same room, looking directly onto
your monitor !!!!!! DAMN !!
And even worse there is even a EXPLOIT ! Anyone who knocks you off can gain
access to the server, even ROOT access !
This is in my opinion exactly as worse as the fact that someone can steal
your key or penetrate your keyboard to gain the password, etc. etc. etc.
This discussion leads to nothing - except : There is NO secure protocol, but
ssh is far more secure than telnet...
If ssh is not secure enough - nobody will stop you if you go to the server
personally and type in what you want to =)
Markus
SCNR *g*
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Woods)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:32:16 +0000 (UTC)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote in <979tvk$e0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Aaron Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>: radians are a "unitless" type of unit, and therefore, the standard.
>
>A full circle is 2 * pi. Still, it's a "unitless" unit. In any case, I
>found a working solution to my pet problem by using a conversion
>formula. My proggie works just fine now. Time to code up a proggie for
>the launch of an arbitrary projectile, like a car off a jump ramp.
>
>That fun problem has the further challenge of taking into account the
>attitude of the car during ballistic flight. Air friction only adds more
>math fun! Use fins for attitude control for ballistic flight across the
>Grand Canyon.
I think anyone willing to do that should be a nominee for a Darwin award.
Ian Woods
------------------------------
From: "Brett I. Holcomb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:29:31 -0600
Use an industrial mouse - they last a little bit longer <G>.
--
Brett I. Holcomb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Microsoft MVP
AKA Grunt<><
"Paul Repacholi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Of course the workers would have to access the system to enter data,
> > > etc, so the user interfaces can't be too complicated (GUI?).
> >
> > Your workers would know how to use a web browser, so why not make the
> > inventory system accessible through any web browser? The MySQL database
>
> Never worked in afactory have you? How long will the mouse keep working
> after it has been grabbed by a paint/glue/oil... covered hand?
>
> --
> Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
> +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
> West Australia 6076
> Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
------------------------------
From: "Tor Rustad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:29:00 +0100
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> In article <979rsq$c3s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dan Pop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > In <979mmq$i3t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>> There are 2 pi radians in a full circle, so the conversion is pi /
> >>> 180.0:
> >>>
> >>> double deg_to_rad(double degrees)
> >>> {
> >>> return degrees * 3.14159265358979323846 / 180.0;
> >>> }
> >>
> >>It would be easier to use M_PIl as #defined in math.h
> >
> > <math.h> has no licence to define such a macro when the compiler is
> > invoked in conforming mode.
>
> Is there an official place where a definition of PI is meant to reside?
No trace of it in the standard, and I also checked the header directory without
any luck.
I think the problem is that you are *not* using your C compiler in ANSI mode.
--
Tor <torust AT online DOT no>
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:54:44 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hi Erik,
> >
> > > MS has already stated in several places, including the Whistler SDK
> > > (available online freely to anyone) that the theming API's would not be
> > > released. The reason, is that they want to ensure that all themes
> > > follow the basic windows UI guidelines.
> > >
> > > I'm sure MS will license the theme SDK to developers that agree to abide
> > > by UI guidelines and certify the themes, but that won't happen till at
> > > least the release of whistler.
> >
> > I appreciate the confirmation that Microsoft will not be releasing the
> > theming APIs.
> >
> > I was silly enough to think that Microsoft no longer practiced hiding API
> > specifications from the public and developers.
>
> All OS's have unpublished API's, including Linux. You can find all kinds of
> API's that are inside the kernel but do not appear in man pages because
> they're intended to be used internally inside the kernel itself without a
> published interface.
The Linux kernel has NO undocumented APIs. Everything is documented as source
code. Man pages are helpful, maybe, but authoritative? Never.
>
> Where someone like MS would get in trouble is if their apps, like office
> used those API's to their advantage, and nobody has yet proved this to be
> the case. Andrew Schulman published a book years ago called Undocumented
> Windows which exposed MS's use of hidden API's in 16 bit versions of Office,
> but also proved that using those API's gave them no advantage. Most of it
> was left over from the Windows 2.x days.
Are you kidding?
Time and again, a new API is introduced in Windows, and guess what? MS Office
already uses it. Do you remember the common dialog bit? Before Windows
officially had common dialogs, Office was using them. This sort of thing raises
more than a few issues: (1) it is proof that Office has access to OS
development, which means it is almost impossible to compete fairly. (2) The
Office team gets additions made to the OS, but these additions are designed to
be "office-esque" and primarily designed, not to be generic, but to hinder
other software developers.
If you look carefully at APIs in Windows, you think, "God that is a terrible
design." Then when put in the context of office, it makes sense. If you do some
homework and look at old documentation on how to write extensions for Word and
excel, you will see much that is familiar.
That is just the ones they let out. There are lots of APIs that are regularly
used by office and MS applications which are not even near documented, they are
simply ordinal numbers. Some begin with "bunnyxxxx." Who knows what they are,
but Word uses them.
People mention Schulman as some sort of authority. I don't agree, he is often
paid by Microsoft, Schullman will say what Schullman is paid to say. When he
testifies for the DOJ, I will add to his credibility rating, which is currently
quite low. This is the same man who claims Win95 is an OS, either he is a fool
or a pawn.
--
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
consistency.
-- Albert Einstein
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:43:51 GMT
On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:44:06 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:14:22 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> BTW, the Findings of Fact quote MS executives to the effect that they
>> did not belive this.
>
> I think the evidence was that MS believed they needed more to dislodge
> entrenched Netscape users quickly. Another factor was that MS didn't
> control the web content, and thus couldn't force users to take
> advantage of new features like CSS which Netscape didn't support very
> well.
Indeed. For a while they had a clause in the Internet Access Kit (IAK)
license that you had to use two IE-specific features on your web site.
>> >> >> Then why did MS spend millions to secure such agreements?
>> >> >
>> >> >Because Netscape was doing the same thing.
>> >>
>> >> No, they weren't, and never did.
>> >
>> >NS did in fact have many exclusive contracts with ISP's.
>> You were misinformed then. The deals Netscape offered gave an ISP the
>> right to distribute Navigator for either a per-copy price or to
>> distribute unlimited copies to their user base for a period of time by
>> paying a flat fee.
> No, my ISP was required to pay NS for each of their users, whether or
> not we used or wanted Navigator.
If you say so. For some reason MS never seems to have brought up the
"they were doing it too" defense at the trial. I claim that they
probably paid a flat fee, which I suppose you could spin as "paying
whether we wanted it or not", which but doesn't have quite the anti-
competitive aspects of giving it away for free in return for
exclusivity. The FoF agrees with my interpretation rather than yours.
> MS didn't have those exclusive deals with all ISP's either, only a
> few.
I think I said that. Most only had to agree to various conditions such
as making IE the "preferred" browser and using a number if IE-specific
features on their web site.
Others signed an exclusive deal (well, really they had to give IE to a
minimum percentage of their customers, only advertise IE, etc) in order
to get listed in the Internet Wizard. Mostly only the larger ISP's did
this.
> What makes you think NS gave you the same deal they gave everyone?
Maybe they didn't. I haven't seen any actual evidence of this, other
than your say-so. The FoF make no mention of it, only of the per-copy
or flat-fee schemes. I suspect that your ISP paid a flat fee and did
not want to have to support anything else for that reason. Can you
present evidence other than what some underpaid tech support person said?
> Browsers began as free products. NS tried to turn a free product into
> a pay product. It's not surprising they ultimately failed.
So why was MS so fearful of their market share? Why did they spend
millions, by their own admission, to kill off Netscape if they were
doomed from the start?
In any case, your implication that their business model was doomed does
not follow. They were, in fact, able to sell browsers and make
significant revenue until a deep-pocketed competitor who could draw on
other revenue sources decided to try to put them out of business.
>> See the Findings of Fact <http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-findings2.html>
>> starting from paragraph 250 or so for a discussion of who done what. I
>> apparently did mis-remember one thing. The exclusive deals were to get
>> listed on the Connection Wizard Referral Server, not just to distribute
>> IE. The IE/IAK deals only called for IE to be the "preferred" browser.
>> However, the ISP's who got listed on the Referral Server had about 80%
>> of the user base.
> 80%? I doubt that. There are litereally millions of ISP's throughout the
> world, and back in 96 there were literally tens of thousands of them in the
> US alone.
Well, that's what the FoF says, and it seems reasonable to me.
You are very much mistaken on the number of ISP's. There aren't "tens
of thousands" of ISP's in the US, much less "millions" in the world
(IIRC the US market currently represents about half of the world,
although that share is falling rapidly). The current Boardwatch ISP
listing [1] claims 8500 ISP's. Some part of those are probably out of
business or merged or otherwise not really operating (e.g. my company is
on the list even though it was sold and merged a year ago), so the
actual total is surely less. Anyway, even today there aren't "tens of
thousands", and in 1996 there were quite a few less. IIRC, Boardwatch's
survey for 1996 had fewer than 2500, but I'm too lazy to look it up for
you.
In addition, most ISP's are small, having fewer than 5000 users. OTOH,
the big guys are really big. AOL supposedly has 20 million users by
itself, and Earthlink, IBM, and AT&T are doing pretty well too. I find
it quite easy to imagine that by getting a few dozen of the top ISP's on
board they could get 80% of the user base. The situation was somewhat
different in 1996, with smaller ISP's holding a bigger share, but there
were fewer ISP's over all so the 80% figure seems entirely reasonable to
me.
>> The reason that MS spent millions to convince ISP's to give away IE was
>> because both ISP's and MS executives believed that Netscape was the
>> better product.
> Netscape was *NOT* the better product.
It certainly was in 1995-6, which is the period we are discussing. And
there is evidence in the trial record that MS executives and ISP's both
believed that NS was the better product in that time period. Remember,
it was in this time period that MS had just barely discovered the
Internet.
> IE3 and IE4 were roughly equivelant, but IE4 started leaving Netscape
> behind in the dust, especially in W3C standard support.
If you say so, but that's not what we are discussing. IE4 didn't come
out until well after the exclusive-deal shenanigans had started. IE4
and later isn't a fair comparison either, as we don't know what Netscape
would have produced if they hadn't had their air supply cut off.
[1] <http://www.ispworld.com/public/ispsearch/searchStart.jsp>
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RTFM at M$
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:43:53 GMT
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 04:55:07 GMT, Norman D. Megill
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought the most common DoS attacks were SYN floods. I've never
> heard of a DoS attack with normal, short, non-broadcast pings
Imagine if 10,000 people all started sending one ping/sec to the same
site. Now imagine one guy planting a remote-control trojan like Back
Orifice or trinoo on a few hundred systems and sending 100 pings/sec.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RTFM at M$
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:43:54 GMT
On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 23:19:22 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Not just pings, but all ICMP.
>They block all ICMP.
They block _all_ ICMP? That's bad. It breaks path MTU detection. I
guess all the world damn well better have an MTU of 1500 from now on.
>> Why do yahoo.com, google.com, and
>> other high-profile sites not see the need to block valid pings?
>
>Because they don't tend to be as large a target as MS is.
Uh, yeah, I guess Yahoo thinks so after they got DoS'd last year.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
