Linux-Advocacy Digest #576, Volume #32 Thu, 1 Mar 01 10:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better (dubin
david scott)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better (Craven
Moorehead)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better ("Dr. Ram
Samudrala")
Re: URGENT MESSAGE TO CHAD'S EMPLOYER Was: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: rh 6.2 and wu-ftp 2.6.0-14 (Tim)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: M$ doing it again! (mlw)
Re: MS Price Strategy (was Microsoft Tax) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: [OT] .sig (chrisv)
Re: [OT] .sig (Joona I Palaste)
Re: URGENT MESSAGE TO CHAD'S EMPLOYER Was: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Chad Myers")
Re: why open source software is better (Peter Seebach)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Chad Myers")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Chad Myers")
Re: KDE or DOJ ? (Roberto Alsina)
Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market ("al")
Re: KDE or DOJ ? (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 10:18:07 GMT
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:20:40 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|> Well, it would be nice if you had substantive backup for your claim
|> that SSH1 has security flaws. Do you have a CERT advisory handy?
|> Or even a webpage detailing the interview with the developer of
|> the SSH1 code where he calls it insecure?
|
|I posted three vulnerabilities from this month, and one from
|last month.
|
|I also quoted (and posted the URL) of the email as posted on Slashdot
|from one of the creators/owners (I guess) of SSH.com who was asking
|OpenSSH to cease and decist using the "SSH" name because they
|still use the "fundamentally flawed" SSH1 protocol. The "fund.."
|term was an actual term he used.
|
|My posts and facts were met with personal insults and immature
|behavior by developers for OpenSSH themselves.
Fair's fair. You get to ignore the posts where your arguments
were refuted, he gets to ignore your posts where you make your
allegations.
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:06:13 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
<as usual, nothing >
Chad, when will you get it?
You can repeat this BS for another year if you like, you are still
a liar. By repeating this stuff it wonīt get any more true.
Or is it just that youīre back on now that this stuff is no longer
crossposted to the ssh-group where people actually knowing
something about this stuff (you donīt) could put your inane rantings
into true perspective? That now you donīt feel threatened by them
to be exposed as the dumbass you are, you are right back.
I would suggest that you learn something about ssh before posting
this BS.
By the way, how is W2Kīs ssh doing? Is it as bad as the telnet?
Peter
--
begin LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.txt.vbs
I am a signature virus. Distribute me!
end
------------------------------
From: dubin david scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 10:53:17 GMT
In gnu.misc.discuss Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you read the article today at ZDNet by Richard Smallman ?
[...]
> The fact that 99% of the computer literate society regard Linux
> incorrectly as Linus's baby must really bug him.
Whoopee, let's all speculate on what irritates RMS. My turn: there's
the fact that nobody else in computing is as careful to document
*precisely* what he objects to, and what the goals of his project
are. And yet boneheads still ignore what he actually says, and make
stuff up instead.
[...]
> Finally to nail him down to being a communist, this comment at the end
> "Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property
> rights, human rights must prevail."
Quoting that radical communist Abraham Lincoln who (just like RMS)
wore an even larger beard than Vladimir Lenin.
Dave Dubin
GSLIS, UIUC
------------------------------
From: Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:06:51 +1100
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 10:53:17 GMT, dubin david scott
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In gnu.misc.discuss Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Have you read the article today at ZDNet by Richard Smallman ?
>[...]
>
>> The fact that 99% of the computer literate society regard Linux
>> incorrectly as Linus's baby must really bug him.
>
>Whoopee, let's all speculate on what irritates RMS. My turn: there's
>the fact that nobody else in computing is as careful to document
>*precisely* what he objects to, and what the goals of his project
>are. And yet boneheads still ignore what he actually says, and make
>stuff up instead.
>
>[...]
>> Finally to nail him down to being a communist, this comment at the end
>> "Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property
>> rights, human rights must prevail."
>
>Quoting that radical communist Abraham Lincoln who (just like RMS)
>wore an even larger beard than Vladimir Lenin.
C'mon !! Abe was probably talking about slavery. I also do not
recognise the right of one person to own another person. (Admittedly
it was a much more radical thought a couple of centuries ago)
Richard dos not recognise the right of one person to keep his code
private/proprietary. This is much less honourable, in fact, I find it
deplorable.
I wonder which of us will look like a tosser in 200 years ?
Craven
------------------------------
From: "Dr. Ram Samudrala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Date: 1 Mar 2001 11:21:32 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In misc.int-property Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 10:53:17 GMT, dubin david scott
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In gnu.misc.discuss Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Have you read the article today at ZDNet by Richard Smallman ?
>>[...]
>>
>>> The fact that 99% of the computer literate society regard Linux
>>> incorrectly as Linus's baby must really bug him.
>>
>>Whoopee, let's all speculate on what irritates RMS. My turn: there's
>>the fact that nobody else in computing is as careful to document
>>*precisely* what he objects to, and what the goals of his project
>>are. And yet boneheads still ignore what he actually says, and make
>>stuff up instead.
>>
>>[...]
>>> Finally to nail him down to being a communist, this comment at the end
>>> "Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property
>>> rights, human rights must prevail."
>>
>>Quoting that radical communist Abraham Lincoln who (just like RMS)
>>wore an even larger beard than Vladimir Lenin.
>C'mon !! Abe was probably talking about slavery. I also do not
>recognise the right of one person to own another person. (Admittedly
>it was a much more radical thought a couple of centuries ago)
>Richard dos not recognise the right of one person to keep his code
>private/proprietary. This is much less honourable, in fact, I find it
>deplorable.
I do not recognise the right of one person to tell another person what
to do with their photocopier, their CD-burner, making the contents of
their hard disk available to everyone, etc.
And of course, I consider the exercise of this government-granted
"right" to control what and how people copy just as dishonourable,
deplorable, and unethical as the government-granted "right" that
allowed people to control the freedom of slaves (with only a slight
tongue in cheek here).
--Ram
--
email@urls || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
"Nice jobs finish last."
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: URGENT MESSAGE TO CHAD'S EMPLOYER Was: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:10:17 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:97ja2v$ogg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I thank God every day that I don't have to use that box as my desktop
> > > because the state of Unix and Linux is so poor, I would have to shoot
> > > myself if I did.
> >
> > Please, whoever employs Chad, remove his windows machine this instant and
> > make him use Solaris/CDE.
> >
> > -Ed
>
> Let the record show the kind of immature childish assholes I attempt to
> engage in an intelligent debate with.
>
> -c
That you're attempting to engage in a debate is self
evident. That you're attempting to make it intelligent needs
to be substantiated with proof. Evidence produced up to know
proves the opposite. Your inability to run a Solaris box may
explain the reasons behind your failure.
--
Giuliano Colla
Before activating the tongue, make sure that the brain is
connected (anonymous)
------------------------------
From: Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: rh 6.2 and wu-ftp 2.6.0-14
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:16:56 GMT
Armando Ortiz wrote:
If you use the version of wu-ftpd that comes with rh 6.2 you WILL get
cracked. Guarantee it. It is a very grave root exploit and you need to
update it.
> Chad wrote:
>
>> I have rh 6.2 and recently installed package wu-ftpd-2.6.0-14.6x. My
>> security team says, "Version 2.6.0 still contains security exposures".
>> They are suggesting to install wu 2.6.1, but I would rather just stick
>> with the
>> rh rpms. Can someone shed some light on this?
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> I use ProFTPd, myself. I shyed away from wu a long time ago because of
> it's difficulty in configuration.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:21:33 GMT
J Sloan wrote:
>
> Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> > . ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> > : Unscheduled downtime... I doubt there are many NT machines out there
> > : that don't need their 'maintenance reboot'.
> >
> > Just like animals and people need to sleep, the natural "maintenance reboot".
> > At least nature provided for Defrag during down time in the form of dreams.
> >
> > The funny part is how animals, like NT machines, go haywire and eventually die
> > when not allowed the "maintenance reboot". As far as my Linux box, the only
> > downtime it ever expierences is when I issue the command to wrap up to either
> > use 95 briefly or mess with hardware. Linux NEVER crashes unless you really
> > fuck up.
>
> Hey, I like that last sentence, can I use it in my .sig?
>
> jjs
Well, not everything is perfect on Linux. For instance
yesterday, while I was testing the NIC of a new laptop, it
continuously complaining about network being unreachable,
instead of telling me plainly that the network cable I was
using was unplugged at the other side. :-)
--
Giuliano Colla
Before activating the tongue, make sure that the brain is
connected (anonymous)
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:31:23 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > Claiming something is self-documenting only works for people that
> already
> > > know what the code is for and does.
> >
> > Ignorance and an antipathy toward learning, does not mean something is not
> > documented.
>
> The purpose of documentation is to teach and inform. How can it do that if
> you have to already know what it does before it can document itself?
If one authors literature in french, and you don't read french, is it still
literature? Program source code is a "language" if you can't understand it,
that is your problem.
A map to some pharaohs cave, in the original Egyptian, would be far more
difficult to decipher than would source code, but the map is documentation of
the process by which one finds the location.
Documentation is not defined as something that "teaches and informs." According
to webster's the definition is: "the use of documentary evidence." or "a
furnishing with documents as to substantiate a claim or the data in a book or
article."
If you can not follow C code, that is too bad, but the code is the
documentation of the kernel. If you can read C and familiarize yourself with
the structure of the kernel, you can know everything there is to know about the
Linux kernel.
It is 100% published thus 100% documented.
--
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: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: MS Price Strategy (was Microsoft Tax)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:37:58 GMT
WarpKat wrote:
>
> I've actually asked a full $180 (or whatever the cost of Windows currently
> is) to be deducted from a laptop that I had no intention of running Windows
> on. The sales person laughed at me. I hung up. 'nuff said.
>
FWIW: I buy my hardware at a shop kept by old schoolmates of
mine. Yesterday they offered me an Intel box assembled in
Italy (by an Intel certified company) telling me: if you're
going to use Linux, you save 189,000 Liras (approx. US$ 95)
of the MS license.
--
Giuliano Colla
Before activating the tongue, make sure that the brain is
connected (anonymous)
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:50:42 GMT
"Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Once upon a while "chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>(Yes, I'm not american. Thank god!)
>>
>> I'm glad you're not, too. We don't need any more book-burning fascist
>> censors in our country.
>
>
>Ah, an extra note:
>
>*plonk*
As expected, from a book-burning fascist censor.
------------------------------
From: Joona I Palaste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: 1 Mar 2001 13:58:25 GMT
chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scribbled the following
on comp.lang.c:
> "Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Ah, an extra note:
>>
>>*plonk*
> As expected, from a book-burning fascist censor.
So everyone who disagrees with you is a book-burning fascist censor?
In that case, consider me one too.
*PLONK*
--
/-- Joona Palaste ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"We sorcerers don't like to eat our words, so to say."
- Sparrowhawk
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: URGENT MESSAGE TO CHAD'S EMPLOYER Was: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:06:58 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:22:40 GMT, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"Ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:97ja2v$ogg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> > I thank God every day that I don't have to use that box as my desktop
> >> > because the state of Unix and Linux is so poor, I would have to shoot
> >> > myself if I did.
>
> Chad wrote this, not Ed. I guess it is "intelligent debate". Chad
> screwed up his Solaris box and uses that to claim that _Linux_ is poor.
Screwed up? I installed Gnome. In fact, I used the handy Helix Gnome installer
which made it pretty brainless.
According to you, however, it must've been the culprit and installed
my Gnome incorrectly, right?
As far as Linux is concerned, Gnome is one of the primary desktops for
Linux. It's a sad commentary that one of the primary and most popular
GUIs for Linux is so big riddled and unstable.
>
> >> Please, whoever employs Chad, remove his windows machine this instant and
> >> make him use Solaris/CDE.
>
> > Let the record show the kind of immature childish assholes I attempt to
> > engage in an intelligent debate with.
>
-Chad
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: 01 Mar 2001 14:23:00 GMT
In article <NQln6.4972$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How odd then, that NCSA Mosaic source code didn't enter the public
>domain but was instead brokered through a third party on its way
>to becoming Internet Explorer so another company could make loud
>noises about innovation...
I am pretty sure there was, for quite a while, a free project derived from
that code, too.
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:12:33 GMT
"Bobby Shaftoe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:2XVl6.23279$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It seems to be, Chad, that all you've succeeded in doing is causing a large
> quantity of the regular users of this newsgroup to lose a whole load of
> respect for you. Am I correct in saying that the one outstanding
> 'fundamental flaw' in SSH is its "insecure" man-in-the-middle attack during
> initial key exchange?
>
> I'm hoping you've done all your research before crying wolf, because we all
> know that there isn't an encryption or certification algorithm on the planet
> that can authenticate an anonymous system. It is for this reason that
> trusted third parties were conceived. If you exchange your first ever key
> across the Internet (or any other public network) then you have to accept
> that the key could have been compromised at that moment, but then, you
> wouldn't do that on a "secure" system, would you?
Ok, let's stop right there. First, I have NEVER attempted to debate any of
the specifics of why SSH is bad. I do not claim, nor have I ever claimed
to be an expert in the field of encryption. Second, I have cited sources
of "experts" in the field who have posted vulnerabilities in SSH 1 and 2.
I have also cited SSH.com representatives themselves who claim SSH1 is
"fundamentally flawed". He even went on to criticize OpenSSH for using
this protocol as it endangers many people who use OpenSSH.
It seems that the OpenSSH folks have ignored SSH.com's repeated
communications about trademark violation and using the flawed SSH1
protocol.
This is what has concerned me. There are people who pretend to
operate a trusted security product, but do not take the responsibility
that comes along with operating such product. They don't seem to be
the least bit scared of all the people out there still using SSH1.
This seems irresponsible, at least.
When I attempt to alert everyone to it, or bring it up for discussion,
I get flamed, insulted, and whatever other childish tactics they can
bring against me. This concerns me even more. Are security products
like this typically run by a bunch of immature adolescents?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:38:29 -0300
Craven Moorehead wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:53:43 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil
> hunt) wrote:
>
>>>Aren't you getting confused now? Open source does not necessarily mean
>>>free,
>>
>>It meas free as in speech, but not necessarily as in beer.
>
> Have you read the article today at ZDNet by Richard Smallman ?
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2690949,00.html
>
> Man, what a tosser !!
>
> He seems to have a real chip on his shoulder about Linux. He goes out
> of his way to call Linux GNU/Linux (technically correct) and adds that
> the majority of code in Linux is GNU (again correct).
Actually, I seriously doubt that is correct at all, at least not in many
systems. For example, If you install OpenOffice, it's 9MLOC that is not GNU.
The kernel is not GNU.
X is not GNU.
TeX is not GNU [1].
KDE is not GNU.
The only GNU software I really use is bash, fileutils, textutils and gcc.
Last time I saw someone actually check, GNU software was not the majority,
only the largest minority, and that was checking the Yggdrasil source tree,
that is largely biased for free software, and thus for GNU software.
And that was some 3 years ago, and the GNU piece of the pie sure has not
gotten BIGGER.
[1] No, it's not GNU, no matter how much RMS an his cohorts like to say
it's part of the GNU system. If it's just a matter of labeling things other
people developed, I hereby label GNU "RobertOS" and claim leadership of the
RobertOS/GNU/Linux system.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:14:27 GMT
"Paul Colquhoun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:20:40 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> |
> |"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> |news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> |> Well, it would be nice if you had substantive backup for your claim
> |> that SSH1 has security flaws. Do you have a CERT advisory handy?
> |> Or even a webpage detailing the interview with the developer of
> |> the SSH1 code where he calls it insecure?
> |
> |I posted three vulnerabilities from this month, and one from
> |last month.
> |
> |I also quoted (and posted the URL) of the email as posted on Slashdot
> |from one of the creators/owners (I guess) of SSH.com who was asking
> |OpenSSH to cease and decist using the "SSH" name because they
> |still use the "fundamentally flawed" SSH1 protocol. The "fund.."
> |term was an actual term he used.
> |
> |My posts and facts were met with personal insults and immature
> |behavior by developers for OpenSSH themselves.
>
>
> Fair's fair. You get to ignore the posts where your arguments
> were refuted, he gets to ignore your posts where you make your
> allegations.
Well, I never saw one post from him that wasn't insulting. Other
people have responded and debated the facts, but he never once
attempted to talk intelligently.
And even the people that responded to the facts I posted attempted
to somehow discredit the vulnerabilities posted on Bugtraq.
They said they're patched, great, but what about the many people
out there that are still using the "fundamentally flawed" SSH1
protocol. They seem to be completely oblivious to SSH.com's warnings
and demands.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or DOJ ?
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:48:09 -0300
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Is this one of those things, like your criticism of OS/2, whereby one
>> > system having features or options that another doesn't is a strike
>> > against the first on the grounds of it being "too complicated"?
>>
>> No, this is Erik just blowing smoke. KDE 2.1 has been out for only 2
>> days. There is no way he has even tried it, let alone extensively.
>
> I used KDE 2.0 quite a bit. I can't imagine that 2.1 has changed it that
> radically in only the last 2 or 3 months since 2.0 was released.
Man are you going to be surprised when you try it ;-)
One review called the changes "akin to those between windows 95 and 98".
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: "al" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:41:45 -0500
http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=20143
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or DOJ ?
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:49:49 -0300
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:15:05 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> > Have you used KDE extensively? It's not bad, but it's not the
>> > Explorer killer that you seem to think it is. It's still way to
>> > complicated to configure (have you actually tried looking through the
>> > configuration settings?)
>>
>> Is this one of those things, like your criticism of OS/2, whereby one
>> system having features or options that another doesn't is a strike
>> against the first on the grounds of it being "too complicated"?
>
> Not just too complicated, but confusing, inconsistent, prone to failure
> and
> slow. The KDE panel configuration tool is an exercise in futility. I
> spent
> days trying to add panels in Mandrake 7.2, and they wouldn't appear. I
> thought maybe I had to restart KDE for them to be visible, but no go. The
> panels appeard in the panel editor, but didn't appear in the menus. It
> was
> just goofy. (this was KDE 2.0 upgraded to the release version).
>
> Now, you're right. I'm talking about 2.0 and not 2.1, but I can't imagine
> it's changed that much in such a short amount of time.
The panel in particular has changed a real lot.
But anyway, what do you mean by "adding extra panels"? KDE 2.0 only
supported one panel. On KDE 2.1, it's RMB on the
panel->Add->Extension->Child panel.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
