Linux-Advocacy Digest #582, Volume #32 Thu, 1 Mar 01 14:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (The Ghost In
The Machine)
Re: The Windows guy. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: The Windows guy. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: why open source software is better ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better ("Edward
Rosten")
Re: The Windows guy. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? (Christian Brandt)
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: ahem :) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Edward Rosten")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Rich Teer)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Peter Hayes)
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship (Karel Jansens)
Re: KDE or DOJ ? ("J Peter")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:23:21 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:20:40 GMT
<cejn6.246$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:34:17 GMT
>> <JXVm6.70819$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >
>> >"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> >in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Shane Phelps
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote
>> >> on Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:18:22 +1100
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >[ snip ]
>> >> >
>> >> >Come on gents, let's stop bothering the nice people on css now that this
>> >> >thread has strayed way off-topic.
>> >> >
>> >> >They were nice enough to give Chad a Black Knight job, so let's not
>> >> >bother them any more.
>> >>
>> >> Uh...dumb question, but what the heck is a "Black Knight" job? :-)
>> >
>> >Well, I don't know what the "technical" definition is, but the
>> >practical application of it was to ignore all facts, insult anyone
>> >who raises concerns about their precious and "flawed" security joke,
>> >and then continue to flame them whenever they raise these concerns
>> >again.
>>
>> 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.
Fair enough. Unfortunately, Deja is more or less permanently dead.
But I can look around; Google should help to find such a
monumental flaw.
Of possible interest is the link
http://www.ssh.com/products/ssh/cert/vulnerability.html
which uses language identical to Chad's:
(begin quote)
The purpose of this brief is to bring to light a number of the
important security flaws found in the SSH1 software. For more
in-depth information on these vulnearabilities, please see the
Reference section of this document, which contains links to a
related white paper and CERT vulnerability notes.
[...]
These flaws, described below, fall in the following categories:
access control and authentication, data integrity, confidentiality,
and connection redirection.
(end quote)
The flaws are as follows:
VU#665372 -- this one allows cracking of passwords within an hour IF
RC4 encryption is used -- RC4 encryption was disabled
in 1997.
(not labeled) -- SSH1 connections using RC4 and password
authentication can be replayed
(This appears to be identical to the preceding flaw.)
VU#25309 -- Because the CRC checksum used with the RC4 cipher can be
modified, packets can be modified arbitrarily.
VU#684820 -- SSH1 allows client authentication to be forwarded if client
accepts unknown host keys ("man-in-the-middle" attack
possibility).
Ibid. -- SSH1 allows client authentication to be forwarded if
encryption is disabled.
Conclusions:
[1] There are flaws in SSH1.
[2] These flaws do not appear fatal.
[3] These flaws have been acknowledged by SSH's developers.
>
>My posts and facts were met with personal insults and immature
>behavior by developers for OpenSSH themselves.
>
>> (And then there's the little issue as to how NT's implementation
>> of security [*] -- I don't know if they use SSL, TLS, or what -- is
>> provably hack-proof. ["It hasn't been hacked yet" does NOT count.])
>
>1.) We're not talking about NT
No, but as far as I can tell, it's a valid comparison. NT, after all,
is Linux's primary competitor (the other Unices are competitors as well,
but are quietly switching, rather than fighting). If you prefer,
I can refer to Win2k or WinXP :-), since all three are based on NT.
>2.) We're talking about SSH in comparison with other "trusted" security
> products. For example, a good comparison would be SSH to PPTP. Yes,
> PPTP has many flaws. Microsoft has a.) acknowledged this and has
> posted many advisories and patches to correct the situation and
> b.) has discouraged the use of PPTP in favor of IPSec. In fact, it's
> difficult to set up a Win2K PPTP server as Win2K warns you that
> IPSec is better. SSH.com has done the bigger thing as well and has
> developed a better protocol (SSH2) and discontinued the use of SSH1.
> OpenSSH, however, sees fit to still ship the "fundamentally flawed"
> SSH1 protocol and seems to laugh in the face of anyone that warns them
> not to, including SSH.com themselves, and their lawyers.
I'm familiar with neither PPTP nor IPSec. I know an open VPN product
(whose name escapes me, unfortunately) is available for Linux.
>
>-Chad
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 24d:17h:39m actually running Linux.
No electrons were harmed during this message.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 1 Mar 2001 18:25:49 GMT
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:36:31 +0000, Edward Rosten wrote:
>This still works under my definition
>
>So long as the first process produces output, the secone process will
>get it.
There are some problems with this:
For example, what if the second process doesn't get the data before
reboot ? ie how do you know that the output streams are flushed ?
>In the DOS example above, the output of the first process never reaches
>the input of the second.
One could argue that this is because a single tasking system does not
support processes that never stop. (just as Linux does not allow you
to save state to disk)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:38:33 -0600
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97m303$b16$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:97kca1$enc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> :> : news:97jp4h$ice$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :>
> :> :> NO. Running code is NOT a program. Running code is a process.
> :> :> The word "program" refers to the image in its static form, either
> :> :> as an executable file (and the associated execution library files),
> :> :> or as a loaded bunch of code in RAM. It doesn't become a "process"
> :> :> until it is running. Here's an analogy: Program is to screenplay
> :> :> as process is to movie.
> :>
> :> : Well then, I fail to understand your refusal to clasify running DOS
code
> : as
> :> : a process then.
> :>
> :> I fail to see why you think that's what I've been saying, King
Strawman.
> :> Running DOS code IS a process, I even SAID that DOS is a single
> :> process that never dies, right in this very thread. The pertinent
> :> point, that you keep missing, is that it is ONE, count them, ONE
process.
> :> Inter-process requires that there be actual processes (plural) to
> :> talk to each other. One process talking to itself using a temp
> :> file is not "interprocess" by any stretch of the imagination.
>
> : Then tell me, how is it that TSR's can run concurrently with DOS
> : applications? Are you going to claim that the TSR and the DOS
application
> : are the same process? Clearly, they're not.
>
> TSR's are not processes any more than the UNIX kernel is a "process".
What is it then? You claim that a process is the instance of running code.
The UNIX kernel doesn't run in the context of the user processes, so
therefore, if it's running... it must be in a process of some type (based on
your loose definitions of a process).
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 19:23:22 +0100
In article <Hrcn6.30474$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Quantum
Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "phil hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>
>> It could do this because the market values RH high enough for the stock
>> to be valuable. Note, the opinion of people *putting their money where
>> their mouth is* is that RH is a valuable company.
>>
> Red Hat valuable? High of 136 and now valued at 6.50 at 2:00pm ET.
>
>> If you think it isn't valuable, I suggest you buy RH put options, of
>> other instruments that imply you are betting the share price will go
>> down.
>
> Price did go down today, just like it has for over a year, high was
> back in December 1999. I wonder how long it will take before RH is a
> penny stock?
>
>
The high point is irrelevant. That was reached in a market plagued by
'irrational exuberance' (10 points if you can identify the quote). What
is relevant is their issue price: $14. Now in a very depressed tech
market at around 6.50 I'd say they are still doing well. Remember that RH
have quite clearly stated that they would use the proceeds of the IPO to
build up their cash reserves so that they could tide over a limited
period of losses and expand. So far they haven't been burning cash, and
they have met all their earnings targets (in fact managed to exceed the
latest one), so they are actually a very solid business.
Follow them like I do, and I think you'll pleasantly surprised.
Disclaimer: although I work in securities I am not an analyst and not
qualified to give a binding advice. Had I had the cash right now I'd have
bought call options (I tend to blow my money on books and gear).
Mart
--
Yes, it is written. Good shall always destroy evil.
-- Sirah the Yang, "The Omega Glory", stardate unknown
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:32:53 +0000
>>> Indeed. Personally, if the GNU OS was finished in 1991 when Linux
>>> first hit the street, why the hell did it take until 2000 to complete?
>>> That makes it even more vaporous than any M$ product.
>>It didn't take until 2000 to hit the street. Slackware started selling
>>it in 1993 IIRC and it was avaliable for download before then.
>
> You could buy a copy of Hurd in 1993?
I was talking about GNU/Linux.
> The GNU OS is NOT Linux. The GNU OS is Hurd. Hurd had been vaporware for
> many years until it finally hit the street in 2000.
Nope, that's the GNU Kernel. Read the GNU website. They seem to have
adopted Linux happily.
> Maybe RMS' jealousy is based on the fact that Linus showed him to be the
How do you know he's jealous?
> blowhard has-been that he really is. What has RMS *done* lately besides
I don't know off hand, but he's done more than enough up to this date.
> pontificate? He's not doing gcc any more (thank $DEITY)...what else?
> Tinkering with EMACS? Big fat hairy deal.
>>Well, I disagree. Without GNU, Linux would be nowhere. A kernel on its
>>own is not an operating system. How do you think Linux suddenly went
>>from baing a kernel to an operating system? It did that because 90% of
>>the operating system had already been written by GNU. All the components
>>are essential. Claiming that one is somehow more deserving than the
>>others is silly.
>
> By your logic, then, it should be called Intel/Linux...after all,
> without the i386, Linux would be nowhere, too.
GNU is an integral part off the operarting system. Don't twist my words
like that.
> Besides, there's nothing that says that Linus couldn't have used the BSD
> toolchain and utilities to build the system to start with. The GNU
> utilities were handy. Further, even now, well under half the OS is
> GUNish, unless you creatively define the line to only include the GNU
> stuff.
Seems like you're creatively define the OS to include all applications as
well.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:34:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Edward Rosten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 01 Mar 2001 01:09:04 +0000
<97k7gb$h1s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>> A single-tasking OS is fundamentally incapable of fulfilling this
>>>> definition properly.
>>>
>>>
>>> A simpler definition is:
>>>
>>> a mechanism which allows the output of one process to be put in to the
>>> input of another process in the order that it (the data) was outputted.
>>>
>>> DOS pipes still do not satisfy this definition.
>>
>> Pedant point: Yes, they do. While the data is long stale by the time
>
>Not quite.
>
>There are examples of programs I can run where the output of the first
>program will never reach the input of the second under DOS pipes, but
>will always work under a multitasking syetem (under my definition of
>pipes). Since DOS pipes do not fit the definition, they are not pipes.
>
>
>prog_that_will_never_finish | some_other_prog
Oops, my bad. :-) You're right; if the first program never
finishes, the second program will see nothing.
So the ordering might be OK, but it's very easy to order a null set. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Oxymoron #19845: Microsoft Works
EAC code #191 24d:18h:05m actually running Linux.
Are you still here?
------------------------------
From: Christian Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 19:39:36 +0100
Masha Ku'Inanna wrote:
> If BSD is splintered, what would you call Linux? Sawdust?
A kernel :-)
Actually Linux-Users have no problem if this nice kernel is used in
many different Operating Systems with different targets and different
methods. But BSD-folks tend to think of "the One BSD OS" "As the great
unified and allmighty one" and it isn`t.
And btw, there are even more BSD-Distributions out there:
MyBSD, BoreBSD, NukeBSD, 123BSD, FirstBSD, SecondBSD, 1BSD, 2BSD,
ThrustedBSD, FunnyBSD, InputBSD, AdvocacyBSD, MSBSD, BS (the BSD without
D), macox, timberwoods, MovieOS, SpidermanBSD, MountRushmoreBSD,
AngelBSD, iamlinuxBSD, LawyersBSD (thats an evil one, I can tell you),
CTE (runs only on native HAL-Hardware), MedicalBSD, MoreBSD, WayMoreBSD,
TooMuchBSD, LittleNiftyBSD, NewMyBSD, NewBoreBSD, OldNukeBSD, 456BSD,
NewFirstBSD, LastSecondBSD, OneBSD, TwoBSD, UnthrustedBSD, GiggleBSD,
AccessBSD, Hate, BillBSD (I swear, I did not install this BSD!), ARC
(runs only on pre-HAL-hardware), PriesthoodBSD, lessBSD, DrunkenBSD,
TooLittehBSD, PornBSD, ... there are way more to mention, but I run out
of time. Most only reside on my Harddisk and I sell them for $$$, but
hey, stop me from doing so :-)
What, those are not important and not widespread?
Well, at least there are only five important Linuxbases Operating
Systems and everyone of those leading five each single one has WAY more
users than all BSD combined. I wouldn=B4t call that "Splittet", I would
call it "widly used" and "adopted to its market".
-- =
Christian Brandt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:39:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:37:11 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <97k814$a5r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>>Personally, I prefer Solaris because it has co-herancy and consistancy
>>between applications, the example would be the copy and paste example
>>(posted a while back), I can copy, cut, paste etc with out a problem, vs.
>>Linux un-consistant short cut keys which changes in each application, and
>>yes I know I am posting using Windows 2000 using LookOut! Express 5 (can't
>>be forked installing and alernative one) because I am waiting for my SUN
>>Machine to arrive (hopefully by next week).
>>
>
>Frankly, this is true of the Windows world also.
>There is no consistent set of keys you use to cut and paste their
>either. Not truely consistent.
Can you give us an example? :-)
I'll admit, I use Control/X, Control/C, and Control/V pretty
much everywhere; the only exceptions are things such as Tera Term Pro
which pass Control/X, Control/C, and Control/V through, which
means that technically they're in violation. Is this what you meant? :-)
>
>The only way you achieve this is to run all Microsoft products,
>which companies rarely do.
>
>It would be like running all KDE made or all GNOME made products.
>
>Charlie
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 24d:18h:10m actually running Linux.
No electrons were harmed during this message.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ahem :)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:42:08 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bobert Big
Bollocks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ahem :)
*cough* :-/
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:43:37 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS PL" <js@plcom> wrote:
> Say it aint so. You mean people can change their OS even if Windows is
> pre-installed?? Doesn't that fly in the face of the (failed) "monopoly"
> courtroom competition strategy that Microsoft's competition was banking
> on?
Absoloutely not! Whether they use windows or not they STILL have to pay
for it. How could anything *but* a monopoly manage to enforce that?
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:45:00 GMT
[Newsgroups trimmed, the CSS people are sick of this thread...]
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:12:33 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
[Snip]
>
> 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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not "representatives", "representative". The whole company is basically
one guy, Tatu Ylonen.
> "fundamentally flawed". He even went on to criticize OpenSSH for using
> this protocol as it endangers many people who use OpenSSH.
>
He throws about claims of "fundamentally flawed" and "Ooh, the big bad SSH1
boogeyman is gonna getcha!" because he SELLS his SSH2 software, and he
regrets open-sourcing SSH1 in the first place because he can't put the
genie back in the bottle now that SSH has >0% installed base.
> It seems that the OpenSSH folks have ignored SSH.com's repeated
> communications about trademark violation and using the flawed SSH1
> protocol.
>
Regarding the "trademark" violation, you can't have a violation if you
don't have a trademark, and according to the relevant law you MUST defend
your trademark to prevent it from becoming a common term. IOW, Ylonen
should have sent notice to OpenSSH two years ago, the very minute he heard
about it. He also published the SSH protocol specification prior to the
date he claims for his "trademark", which helped established the word "SSH"
as a common term for an encrypted remote shell instead of a specific
product.
Regarding the protocol flaw, yes the flaw does exist, but one is
statistically more likely to be killed by a time-traveling Genghis Khan
than be bitten by the flaw. It requires sustaining AT LEAST 400
CONNECTIONS PER SECOND, which is IMPOSSIBLE EXCEPT UNDER IDEAL CONDITIONS
OVER A LOCAL AREA NETWORK. SSH1 needs to eventually be phased out, but
it's not a security risk today.
Besides, the OpenSSH server permits both SSH1 and SSH2 connections
simultaneously, for the sake of backward compatibility. Most of the
installed base of SSH clients out there, including commercial SSH software,
are only capable of using the 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.
>
SSH1, despite its few flaws, is still a hell of a lot more secure than the
clear-text telnet it replaces. I feel absolutely no concern over the fact
that I run a SSH1-capable daemon on my firewall.
> 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?
>
You get flamed and insulted because you didn't even read the very URLs you
posted as "evidence" in your favor. If you had read them, you certainly
wouldn't be here ranting and raving like a lunatic about what amounts to a
single speck of sand on an otherwise smooth tile floor.
> -Chad
>
>
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
From: Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:53:06 GMT
On 1 Mar 2001, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> Thanks for that advice! I will go to San Jose (Costa Rica) to the next
> ALCOMM (a workshop sponsored by SIGCOMM) and I am making all the work
> with StarOffice. I will try to use my Solaris-x86 laptop but I will
> check that the file can be loaded into PowerPoint (I hope we have
> access to a new release of PowerPoint in case that the laptop cannot
> be used).
Why not just install StarOffice on the Laptop, and use *it* instead of
Powerpoint?
--
Rich Teer
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:54:59 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:56:56 -0800, "Keldon Warlord 2000"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:16:31 -0800, "Keldon Warlord 2000"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > if WindowsXP can handle *my* games, then Emperor Gates can count me in
> > > again!
> >
> > You swap your Voodoo 5500 for the next version (6000?).
> >
>
> Voodoo went out of bussiness...what rock did you crawl out from under???
Oh well, GeForce, TNT, take your pick, new sound card, extra/replacement
hard drive, you name it, the principle's the same.
> > You reboot. Instead of "New Hardware Detected" you are greeted with "New
> > Configuration Detected. Please Re-register Windows® XP(tm)."
> >
>
> ha! as if that non-sensecal bullshit would ever pop up on my screen!
Just wait.
> > You click on "Yes, I would like to re-register now".
> >
>
> hmpf... as if I hardrly ever register to begin with...
But that's the point - you'll have NO CHOICE(tm).
> > You are greeted with "Sorry, this is not the registered configuration, to
> > continue using Windows® XP(tm) please purchase a new licence, $500 please.
> > Thank you. Have a nice day."
> >
> > Peter
>
> ....nooot a problem for an IT "professional" such as me... *wink, wink,
> nudge, nudge* ;-)
Oh I'm sure.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:58:27 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donovan Rebbechi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:36:31 +0000, Edward Rosten wrote:
>
>>This still works under my definition
>>
>>So long as the first process produces output, the secone process will
>>get it.
>
> There are some problems with this:
>
> For example, what if the second process doesn't get the data before
> reboot ? ie how do you know that the output streams are flushed ?
If the output streams are not flushed, then the program hasn't sent the
data (under UNIX). The STDIO buffering mechanism has nothing to do with
the OS. You can force your program to send output using the fflush()
library call.
Compare:
main()
{
printf("hello");
raise(SIGKILL);
}
Nothing is seen because the program has never sent any output.
main()
{
write(1, "Hello", 5);
raise(SIGKILL);
}
you see output because the program has sent output.
There is an earlier point I have issue with. You claimed my example was
contrived. It is not, I occasionally pipe /dev/zero to some programs.
>>In the DOS example above, the output of the first process never reaches
>>the input of the second.
>
> One could argue that this is because a single tasking system does not
> support processes that never stop. (just as Linux does not allow you to
> save state to disk)
I don't get your point.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 19:05:01 +0100
Alan Gauld wrote:
> Robert MacGregor wrote:
> > QuarkXpress
>
> The biggie of DTP on Unix is Framemaker.
> There's a free Linux trial/beta version on the Adobe site.
>
> Should do anything Quark can do.
>
The Framemaker for linux beta has been terminated. Adobe "chose" not to
continue the project. All betas expired end of december 2000. Betatesters
were advised to export their documents to another format before the
expiration date.
Nice one, Adobe :-(
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
]]] "Go go gadget linux!" Zzzooommm!! [[[
------------------------------
From: "J Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or DOJ ?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 19:08:00 GMT
KDE or DOJ?
>From the way it seems, neither is up to the task :-)
"Frnk N. Puppenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Which will beat down M$ the most ? KDE-2.1 looks pretty damn good. And
> the price is 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
******************************
