Linux-Advocacy Digest #493, Volume #32 Mon, 26 Feb 01 06:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Stuart Krivis)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Stuart Krivis)
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 05:05:27 -0600
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >What are you talking about specifically here? OEM's pricing was subject
to
> >volume and several other factors. If an OEM's volume goes down, it's
price
> >can go up. It's MSRP has never changed or been exceeded.
> >
> The retail price does not need to change for the cost to go up.
If MS chooses to give discounts to vendors that sell more copies of Windows,
that doesn't mean the general price of windows goes up when they sell less
copies.
> M$ kept the retail price around ten times what a high volume OEM
> would pay for years. I have not kept track.
Not ten times, perhaps 5. But OEM licenses incur additional restrictions,
which allow MS to charge less for them. For instance, the OEM agrees to
take on first tier support issues, and the license is non-transferable
between machines. Retail copies MS provides support and allows you to
transfer the license to any machine you wish.
This is similar to Divx, for instance, which charged vastly lower prices for
DVD's because there were restricted use.
> Since most Windows sales are preloads the OEM price is the important
> factor and Allchin indicated that it had been raised.
Which specific part of his testimony was that? There is nothing in the FoF
which support this statement. I searched through the entire FoF for
Allchin's name and came up with most references to IE and nothing regarding
OEM price.
> >OEM's didn't buy Windows in 1989. And even if they did, it was a
completely
> >different product then. I worked for a major OEM in 1993 (Zeos), and I
know
> >what they paid for Windows and DOS (I maintained their MRP system). The
> >price of Windows 95 was much larger than the price of Windows 3.1, but
then
> >Windows 95 was a standalone product, while Windows 3.1 required the
seperate
> >purchase of DOS.
> >
> When asked what price to expect 95 to be a M$ rep answered that
> since it was a combination of the functionality of DOS plus Windows
> that the price should be near what the two together cost.
>
> Nobody not beholden to M$ bought that crap about 95 being "an all
> new" OS.
Well, it was a new OS, as much as Windows 2000 is a new OS compared to NT4.
The fact that it still includes DOS has nothing to do with this. I said
specifically that Windows was a stand-alone product. It didn't need the
purchase of DOS. I didn't say it didn't include DOS.
> Every one else knew it was just bolted together to kill off DRDOS
> and the DOS Extenders.
Windows did not kill off DOS extenders. Most games rely on DOS extenders
such as DOS/4GW and they work perfectly fine under Windows 9x.
> >That still doesn't explain how if the cost of bringing things to market
has
> >raised because of MS, that Debian is still able to do so for free.
Whether
> >or not people donate time, it's still free for Debian, thus the cost has
not
> >risen for them to bring their product to market.
> >
> Debian is not making a profit and no intention of ever making one.
>
> Depending on charity is not a viable business model.
Seems that Red Hat, Mandrake, and many others do that.
> >> That M$ has been deluding millions of people into thinking that
only
> >> Bill can have good ideas.
> >
> >That's not criminal, whether or not it's true or not.
> >
> Deluding people to obtain money from them is called fraud and it is
> illegal.
No, that's called advertising. Do you really think Tide is any better than
Cheer? Tide certainly wants you to believe so.
> Proving it is the problem. Lots of little lies add up but each one
> can be denied as a "mistake" if challenged.
Federal law allows many statements to be made that are proveably false in
the name of advertising. For instance, you're allowed to say something like
"This is the best product you can find on the market", since that's really
opinion.
> >> That M$ has been using the preload lockins to exclude any non Bill
> >> approved ideas from the desktop.
> >
> >Not true either. They have had limitations on the "first boot", but
OEM's
> >are allowed to put anything they want on the desktop, and they always
have
> >been. They just haven't been allowed to remove things from the desktop.
> >
> Ah yes. The "copyright trumps antitrust" defense.
>
> Jackson did not allow that to be argued in his court either.
And that could well hurt the case in appeal.
> >> Hardly something we can reasonably expect to come from a "garage"
> >> operation though is it ?
> >
> >Yet it's happening, isn't it?
> >
> Only by the largest group of software developers ever gathered
> donating their labor.
I highly doubt that. IBM has had many more developers on it's payroll in
it's heyday.
> Does it not raise questions in you as to *why* these people are
> trying to throw off the shackles you want us all to accept meekly ?
I have said nothing about accepting shackles, meekly or not.
> Not since Hitler have so many people from so many countries around
> the world viewed one man as worthy of their hatred.
Go ask Honduran rebels what they think of our past presidents. I think
you're grossly underestimating how the rest of the world views the US and
its policies.
> Don't you wonder how so many millions can hold your hero in such
> disgust ?
I could care less about Bill. He's not a hero. I have never said I admired
or looked up to him. Ever.
> >> Shows the M$ lie of "We can be put out of business in five years
> >> by two kids in a garage" for how false it truly is.
> >
> >Where do you get this "two kids in a garage" quote from?
> >
> From an interview with Bill abut the time they were fighting Apple
> over the look-n-feel of Windows.
Uhh.. you mean 15 years ago? Most certainly MS could have been overthrown
by monkeys back then.
> Several M$ executives have spouted the
> "we could be put out of business in five years" part but they don't
> finish it.
>
> Too many journalists laughed out loud at that part I guess.
IBM could have said the same thing in 1981. And people would have laughed.
Yet by the late 80's, IBM was on the verge of going out of business.
> >> But they require WinCE for embedded. Linux does not require a
> >> separate tree for even multiple different CPUs.
> >
> >I guess it depends on what you mean by same source tree. Embedded linux
> >most certainly has it's own unique branches and it lacks much of the
> >functionality of a full fledged desktop or server build.
> >
> The embedded Linux stuff is mostly drivers for the unique hardware
> and the one standard kernel with parts of it not compiled in.
No, it's more than that. Embedded support requires a lot of special
support. I'm not just talking about running Linux on a handheld, but a true
embedded OS which includes real-time support, deterministic memory control
(embedded devices don't have swap files, you have to know exactly where and
how memory is allocated) and many other issues.
> The CPU specific parts are quite small.
I agree.
> That is one source tree not complete rewrites like CE and NT are.
CE was based on the NT kernel.
> >> Is Datacenter the same as Desktop ? If it is then what makes it
> >> worth several thousand dollars per CPU ?
> >
> >Datacenter comes with all kinds of extra software, while the basic kernel
is
> >the same between all builds.
> >
> You will have to wave that hand harder if you want me not to notice
> that you provide no information about what makes it worth so much
> more.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/datacenter/features/default.asp
> If it is all in software outside the kernel then why does that
> software cost more when running on more CPUs ?
Licensing. The same reason that Solaris costs more. The same reason that
it costs more for more client licenses.
> >No, it's going to be skinnable. It's just that the skinning sdk won't be
> >publicly available. This is to keep the user interface consistent.
> >
> More likely they need more time to make it harder for third parties
> to develop the skins without learning how to unbolt parts of the
> Windows Experience.
What do you mean exactly?
> >The Halloween Documents were not an official public statement. It was
the
> >opinions of one technician.
> >
> Those incriminating emails were not "official" either.
>
> Not being blessed by the M$ propaganda ministry does not make them
> false, only revealing.
So what you're saying is that if I write a whitepaper that details how to
overthrow my companies competitors, and I leak it to the press, then that's
indicitive of the company, despite the fact that they had nothing to do with
it?
> >Sorry, but directly accessing hardware through an abstraction layer is
not
> >something "denied" to Open Source.
> >
> But what commands are issued to the hardware to perform those
> functions are kept under NDA and any vendor knows that cooperation
> with the Open Source folks in the first three years of a products
> existence will get them moved from the Friends to the Enemies column
> on the list M$ keeps.
And where do you get this? Again, this doesn't appear in the FoF, nor does
it appear in any testimony i've read.
> >DirectX is the primary reason that game developers switched from DOS to
> >Windows. Clearly this is something that game developers found highly
> >useful.
> >
> I am not a programmer but I think I am supposed to mention OpenGL at
> this point.
DirectX is much more than just a 3D API. It's a direct framebuffer API,
it's 3D sound API's, it's network gaming api's, it's joystick and controller
API's, it's animation API's, it's video api's. Don't pretend that OpenGL is
the solution. It's only on tiny fraction of it.
> I find it fascinating that you seem to think games are the measure of
> how advanced an OS is.
Games push an OS to it's limits, and many of the features used by games are
needed by other applications such as CAD or MIDI.
> Never heard of weather simulations or analysing underground
> reflections to find oil ?
Sure, and most of those would use DirectX as well.
> >That's not what you said. You claimed that Linux functions perfectly on
64
> >bit CPU's, insinuating that Windows didn't function perfectly on any 64
bit
> >CPU's. It did (and still does, even if it's not supported).
> >
> You are being deliberately obtuse.
No, I'm trying to point out that you have a much narrower view of windows
than is there in reality.
> >> M$ was working on a 64 bit version of NT and had some falling out
> >> with CompaQ so the, formerly DEC, engineers were directed to stop
> >> work till it was cleared up at which point M$ terminated the
> >> agreement.
> >
> >No, Compaq terminated the agreement. They didn't want to spend money on
NT
> >Alpha support since people weren't compiling their apps for Alpha.
> >
> I remember seeing a quote from a CompaQ spokesperson saying that M$
> terminated the agreement.
>
> But perhaps I am remembering another incident.
Once again, making statements without doing the research.
http://www.compaq.com/corporate/letter19990902.html
> >Again, Windows has more features that Linux has no equivelant to than the
> >other way around.
> >
> More hand waving. Still only the DirectX example.
>
> How many mainframes does NT run on ?
None. How many TPC benchmarks has linux won?
Want other examples? MAPI (Messaging API, including calander, scheduling,
etc..), TAPI (Telephony API, including integration into PBX's and large
switches), SAPI (Speech API), Videoconferencing API's (H.323), etc..
> >> All withdrawn because M$ did not have a symbiotic relationship with
> >> the other CPU vendors.
> >
> >No, because those vendors stopped selling machines which could run NT.
> >
> So hardware makers should conform to what M$ wants to do.
Where do you get that?
> You were the one claiming that they did not control everything.
And this supports that. Clearly, if MS controlled them, they'd still be
making hardware for platforms people didn't buy.
> Which is it really ?
Think it through a little more clearly.
> >To claim that it's "Intel testimony" is a bit dishonest. It was one
> >employee that, despite upper managements pressure, testified. Word has
it,
> >he was inches from losing his job because Intel upper management didn't
> >agree with his testimony. In fact, the Intel lawyers wouldn't allow the
DOJ
> >to meet with him, and he didn't provide any written testimony prior to
going
> >on the stand. The DOJ took a huge chance putting him up there, because
they
> >literally had no idea what he was going to say.
> >
> Intel submitted nothing saying that what he testified was untrue.
>
> Them not wanting to sour their relationship with M$ does not refute
> what he said.
>
> If Intel had wanted to refute his testimony in whole or in part do
> you think that M$ would have left that out of their appeal ?
The fact remains that it wasn't Intel sanctioned testimony, thus it wasn't
the testimony of Intel, and it doesn't indicate a change of opinion at Intel
about MS as you claimed.
> >> Two percent behind on twice as many, 50% faster disks, seems like a
> >> pretty bad statistic to me.
> >
> >Only if the speed of the disks was the bottleneck. I doubt it was.
> >
> M$ approved the hardware. Why would they use better hardware if it
> did not help performance ?
Usually because that was the hardware that was available for the test. MS
wasn't specifically trying to target Linux, they were just creating a good
benchmark.
> Companies like to show how good they are on minimal hardware so that
> they can brag about how much better it can be on better hardware.
I guess you haven't seen many of MS's benchmarks then.
> Do you think they chose better hardware if they could get anywhere
> close to 2% on the same hardware ?
You're assuming they were specifically targeting to beat the Linux
benchmark. If they were, they probably wouldn't publish a poorer score.
> Do you think that M$ would have settled for 2% less if they could have
> beaten Linux ?
Too many assumptions here.
> >> We all have great confidence that M$ never slips a product
delivery.
> >
> >Oh yes, like the the 2.4 kernel was on-time.
> >
> Eighteen months is hardly five years but then 2.4 did not have
> thirty million lines of new code.
It was 18 months late. The 2.2 kernel came out in 1998. 3 years ago.
NT5/2000 was about 2 years late. NT4 came out in August of 1996, while
Windows 2000 shipped in Febuary of 2000. That's 3.5 years. First estimates
of NT5 placed it in late 1997.
Where did you get 5 years from?
> >> M$ is the one who offered to divide up the market with the threat
of
> >> economic death implied by refusal.
> >
> >There is still a lot of doubt surrounding that meeting. I don't know if
> >we'll ever know for sure what really happened there.
> >
> Sworn testimony is usually acceptable to reasonable people.
But you won't accept sworn testimony by MS executives.
> >And none of those things are "acting like it's a life or death
situation".
> >The OP (I think it was Max) stated that acting so was illegal. It's not.
> >
> Reread that exchange. You are in severe denial.
No, I know exactly what I was responding to. I was asked what things I
didn't agree with about MS. One of those things was that I said they acted
like everything was a life or death situation. Max then said that this was
illegal.
> I followed the chain of terms needed to point you to the Sherman
> Act.
>
> You are saying that what the Sherman Act forbids is not against the
> law.
No, I'm saying that when max claimed that "acting like everything was a life
or death situation" was illegal, he was wrong.
> The Sherman Act is a well established law. Breaking it is a felony.
Strange that nobody at MS has been charged with any felonies.
> >> If the number of customers who find them interchangeable is large
> >> enough to be a significant share of the customers of each
separately
> >> then they compete.
> >
> >Yes, indeed they do. That doesn't mean their prices should be the same
> >though.
> >
> If they both want to win the dollars from the customers which find
> them interchangeable they must be close or only one of them gets
> chosen.
There are many factors that go into what a given products value to a
customer might be. For instance, a customer might pay a premium price to
have a special paint job, or to have a heavier suspension put in.
Customers are finicky.
> Only monopolists can hold prices above competitive levels without
> losing lots of customers.
You have still not told me specifically what the competitive level of
Windows is. Without such a value, there is no way you can claim it is above
it.
Imagine this court testimony:
Officer: He was exceeding the speed limit your honor
Judge: What was the speed limit?
Officer: I don't know, your honor, because one hasn't been determined.
Judge: Than how do you know he was speeding?
Officer: Well, clearly the defendant was doing whatever speed he wanted to
go, thus he must have been speeding.
Judge: Case dismissed.
> That is one of the ways you can identify a monopolist.
Well, given that you haven't proven that this is the case, you can harldy
"identify" them this way.
> >> If the overlap is only a small fraction of one who has an
entrenched
> >> market which is not in the overlap then there is danger of
> >> monopolization.
> >
> >I don't follow your point. We are talking about comparing prices here.
> >
> That has to be a troll. You are not that stupid.
You're not making sense. Your point had nothing to do with comparing prices
of similar, but not identical products, which is what we were talking about.
> >In the traditional sense, yes i'm denying that. In the legal sense, I
think
> >it's a fine line. There are valid arguments either way.
> >
> What is "the traditional sense" ?
Look up the term "Monopoly" in the dictionary. That's the traditional
sense.
> >Stop being anal. The arguemnt is the same whether it's SUV's or
> >locomotives.
> >
> You were intentionally missing my point.
>
> Things that can be used to perform the same function do not always
> qualify as competitors.
Yes, they do. If it can be used for the same purpose, and is in fact used
for the same purpose, they compete.
> Solaris does not compete with Windows and as long as M$ ties
> Datacenter to Windows it cannot compete with Datacenter either.
Bullshit. They compete. They steal each others customers. That's
competition.
> >> The only competition between Linux and any M$ product is W2K with
> >> IIS, SQL Server, and Exchange included.
> >
> >So, you're contention is that Linux cannot compete with MS on the
desktop.
> >Glad to know you believe that Linux is so poor there.
> >
> Why do I detect some note of glee in that ?
>
> That river barges do not compete with canoes does not mean that
> canoes are somehow better.
No, I'm just making it clear that you don't think Linux is adequate for the
desktop.
> >Consumers buy a complete system, the OS is included in that. This is
> >similar to people buying a TiVo. It has the OS included, and there is no
> >way for them to buy it without the OS. This is the way consumer
electronics
> >work.
> >
> TiVo is not sold as a general purpose computer.
So?
> Solaris is not sold on commodity hardware, it is given away for x86,
> so its price is no reason for Windows to be priced so high.
Solaris for x86 is a novelty. Very few people use it becuase of it's poor
hardware support. The vast majority of Solaris sales are for Sparc, and Sun
builds the price of the OS into the cost of the hardware for < 8 CPU
systems.
> Before you start that $89 dollar bullshit. Win98/ME/XP should all
> be selling for $13.95 a pop. (That is all a reasonable person would
> pay on a day when they are not angry at Bill, on angry days he could
> not pay me enough to haul it to the junkyard)
Well, all a reasonable person would pay for a new car is $20. See I can
make stuff up as well.
> >> Are you claiming that OEMs lied in their evidence produced at the
> >trial ?
> >
> >Which evidence are you speaking of, specifically?
> >
> About being coerced into deals where buying Windows for 80% of your
> machines cost more than 110% did.
That's called volume pricing.
> That is a deal where you show "commitment" by signing up to sell
> more Windows machines this year than you did last year.
That's called incentives.
> I say coerced because it is made clear to the negotiators that not
> being "committed" would get them moved to their Enemies list which
> you will now claim was not admitted to by M$ witnesses.
It doesn't appear in the FoF. How come?
> >These companies cannot compete with a free OS in the same way. Sun has
now
> >started giving away their OS for <8 processors, but that's misleading
> >because they've built the cost of the OS into their hardware. Solaris
x86
> >is free, but it's almost useless since it supports so little hardware.
> >
> Yet you hue to the Redmond line that all OSes on every platform must
> be considered competitors.
There are two seperate issues here. One of them is "market", which applies
to commerce. A product that is given away for free doesn't exist in a
commercial market and therefore cannot compete price wise. The other is one
of "share" which is where you own a certain percentage of the installations.
> That other vendors do not have the volume to spread their costs is
> no excuse for M$ holding their prices up.
So you now admit that volume is required in order to have lower prices, and
that competition would raise prices.
> >> When volumes go up efficiencies of scale reduce costs and, when you
> >> have competition, prices.
> >
> >Not in a market like this. Increased competition in software will
actually
> >cause prices to rise, since economies of scale allow more profit per unit
> >the more units you sell. The fewer units you sell, the more your
per-unit
> >cost is, the less lenient you can be in pricing or R&D.
> >
> So software is a natural monopoly where a single supplier is more
> efficient than multiple competing suppliers.
I don't see how efficiency leads to a "natural monopoly".
> Are you in favor of it being regulated as the other natural monopolies
> are ?
I'd be fine with prices being regulated, but not having regulators poking
their noses into the design of the OS.
> How do we prevent individuals from writing software and then pooling
> it like Open Source does today ?
I don't think such things should be prevented. I'm simply saying that
forcing competition isn't going to improve prices for the consumer. It
might in the short term, but it won't in the long term.
Look what happened in CA when the government capped prices artificially low,
and restricted the power companies from creating new power sources. Rolling
brownouts.
> >MS also needs to recoup their costs for writing their software as well,
and
> >they spend a lot more on R&D and advertising than Sun does.
> >
> M$ reports between eight and ten billion dollars in profits each
> year. I mean profits, after deducting their costs, including
> advertising and R&D.
>
> Does not strike me that they are being pressed by competition.
And they have a legal responsibility to their shareholders to constantly
improve that profit margin. If they don't, they can be sued by their
shareholders.
> >No, that's MacOS Desktop. MacOS X server is $499 (which is a good deal,
but
> >I think this will change after MacOS X desktop is introduced. MacOS X
> >Server has been out for almost a year, and is way behind the desktop).
> >
> >> How does their having a low price support M$ not overcharging ?
> >
> >That's a high price. MacOS X Desktop upgrade is $129, while MS's upgrade
> >price is $89.
> >
> Again you are assuming that buying a new computer makes MacOS a
> competitor to Win98.
No, I'm pointing out that the pricing of similar products are higher.
> M$ is about to drop 98 from their "supported" list to force people
> to upgrade.
No they're not. They are going to drop 95 at the end of this year, but 98
won't be dropped for several more years.
> >Their preload restrictions were largely covering the areas of trade dress
> >(changing their startup sequence and what ships with the OS (ie removing
> >Internet Explorer), which could negatively iimpact MS's image in the
> >customers eye because of something the OEM did).
> >
> Judge Jackson did not buy that "we can control anything anyone does
> with our product as long as it is covered by a copyright" talk
> either.
Again, that's likely to bite the judge in the ass.
> An engine maker telling a car maker what the car has to look like
> would not fly either.
MS doesn't tell OEM's how to package their computers. An engine company CAN
tell a car company that they aren't allowed to alter the engine.
> A component vendor has no right to dictate anything about how their
> component fits into the final product.
As long as they are promoting Windows as a part of their product, MS has a
right to determine exactly what "Windows" is. Don't you think Alpine would
be a bit miffed if General Motors put Alpine stereo's in their cars, but
completely gutted the electronics and put new (poorer quality) ones in and
still called it an Alpine car stereo?
Using your engine analogy, what if Chrysler were offering a Mitsubishi
engine, but they replaced all the internal parts with stuff that would die
within a month?
> That M$ does is evidence that they wield monopoly power whether you
> think that is "the traditional sense" or not.
No, it means that a trademark and copyright owner has a right to determine
the quality of their own product.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 26 Feb 2001 05:52:07 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:43:21 +0000, Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> So he has to contend himself in spreading FUD, because
>> otherwise he had to admit that even his beloved W2K is just equipped
>> with a (very broken to boot) telnet.
>
>I wish I didn't have to tell you this, but there are much worse telnets
>out there than the one in 'Doze. Not that this implies that that one is
>worthy of the magnetic media it occupies though. The bottom of the
>barrel is just much further down than most sane people realize...
They also improved the telnet in Win2K over the one in older versions of
Windows.
--
Stuart Krivis
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 26 Feb 2001 05:54:26 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:02:21 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>That's not because of telnet. Windows console/text handling (AFAIK)
>is horribly broken, at least under NT. I don't know if Win2k fixed it
>(I have my doubts).
>
>Not that telnet isn't borked, too; most third-party products know
>how to handle resize (e.g., Tera Term and Cygwin).
>But does Microsoft Telnet? Nooooooooooooooo.....
Well, they did improve it, but they forgot to work on this part. :-)
--
Stuart Krivis
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 05:09:04 -0600
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97d9f8$5u5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <yDom6.83$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> > All OS's have unpublished API's, including Linux. You can find all
> > kinds of
> >>
> >> Wrong on two counts.
> >
> > Really?
> >
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> 1) If it's only meant to be use INTERNAL to the kernal, and
> >> *NEVER* by application, then it's *NOT* part of the API.
> >>
> >> API = APPPLICATIONS Programming Interface.
> >>
> >> Anything which is "internal to the kernal" is, by definition, outside
> >> of the scope of the API.
> >
> > That's an awfully narrow view? What exactly do you call the kernel
> > module API? A kernel module is not an application, yet the kernel
> > exposes a set of interfaces for the modules to link to. Those
> > interfaces are commonly known as API's, even if it's not an application.
>
> Pedantry is neither clever nor funny.
Aaron was the one being pedantic in the first place.
> >> 2) What part of OPEN SOURCE do you not understand?
> >>
> >> The source-code IS *ALWAYS* the authoritative documentation.
> >
> > Not everything in the kernel is documented in source comments either.
>
> Then read the source code. It's all in there.
Well, I guess the human being is completely documented too then. Just read
the genome. No big deal, right?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
