Linux-Advocacy Digest #768, Volume #32 Mon, 12 Mar 01 00:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Joke (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Linux office, a possible future..... (mlw)
Re: Linux Joke (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux Joke (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux Joke (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux Joke (T. Max Devlin)
Re: You're stealing my money (Tim Hanson)
Re: Linux Joke (T. Max Devlin)
Re: GPL Like patents. (David Utidjian)
Re: Cuts both ways (T. Max Devlin)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Pat McCann)
Re: No problem with multiple GUI's (Brent R)
Re: The Linux office, a possible future..... (Brent R)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 03:55:53 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 08 Mar 2001 05:06:26
[...]
>There are those in COLA who would have you believe that Linux is
>the most secure OS every invented and silly things like auditing
>and DAC are not necessary in Linux because it's simply OpEn S0uRcE
>and it's l33t or some other bullshit nonsense.
[...]
Guffaw. Really? Who? Please supply details; you're sure to make an
ass of yourself that way. ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux office, a possible future.....
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:59:49 -0500
Brent R wrote:
>
> > The reason for that has a lot to do with AT&T, Microsoft's monopoly, etc.
> > Anyone sufficiently educated with the history of the PC and modern operating
> > systems could conclude it isn't because Microsoft did anything well.
>
> Besides marketing, and a good business plan, and just even having an
> interest in the PC's before most other companies.
AT&T's bull shit about owning unix after they had given it away. This caused
UNIX to be too expensive. If UNIX were not encumbered in the late 1980's/early
1990's who knows what would have happened to DOS and Windows.
It is very likely Microsoft would be the bit player that it should be.
>
> > >
> > > > Sure there are more "applications" for Windows, but there are few applications
> > > > available for Windows which do not have an equivalent in the UNIX world, i.e.
> > > > there are very few innovative applications for Windows.
> > >
> > > What's the UNIX equivalent of Corel Draw?
> >
> > There are several packages, what did you have in mind for particular features?
> >
> > > Microsoft Word? (Star Office
> > > is close but not quite there).
> >
> > Do tell, why isn't Star Office "there" yet? I have been using it over a year,
> > before that I was using Applix.
>
> I agree with Pete. It's a neat program, but it just doesn't have
> everything down yet. Microsoft user-tests everything to death (except
> stability, hehe) and it shows in particular when you use SO.
That's twice people have said, in effect, "it isn't there" well, why? What is
missing. I have used MS-Office and Star Office, I like Star Office better, and
see nothing missing. Tell me what is missing.
>
> It's also hampered by the sluggishness of X, as are all other GUI apps.
> Why do you think the vast majority of *nixen use text-based mail/news
> readers?
I see no "sluggishness" in X for applications. There is a bit to do about
gaming APIs, but X is comparable.
Some people like text mode systems.
>
> > Tell me what isn't "there" yet about these packages?
> >
> > > I'm sorry but the number of desktop
> > > applications on Windows easily outstrips those on UNIX.
> >
> > Number, yes, unique to a task, no.
>
> Well, it's your own personal preference. Some people like the idea of
> not needing a dozen apps in a *nix to do what in Windows would take one
> app.
What is the difference between a dozen applications behind a single front end,
and a dozen .DLLs behind a single app?
As long as the user doesn't see, what do they care?
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 03:57:44 GMT
Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 08 Mar 2001
00:12:41 GMT;
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 13:56:35 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> >>I've always maintained that Linux must have an EZ-HACK feature, judging
>> >by the ease in which "hackers" compromised entire university computer
>> >labs for their DDoS assault on Ebay, Amazon, Microsoft and several
>> >others last summer. It was reported that a large majority of the
>> >machines used in the attack were compromised Linux boxes.
>>
>> Put up or shut up. The box is smith203-1.rutgers.edu.
>>
>> My challenge to you: break in and deface the webpage. I haven't made that
>> much effort to check security (besides the obvious precautions) or keep
>> it up to date.
>>
>> IMO the reason why Linux boxes tend to get compromised is because the
>> "admins" are often not professionals.
>
>The situation is a little better for RedHatters. RH 7 makes it a
>little easier not to run those nasty exploitable services like
>wu-ftp and the r* commands. I got hacked when I had that crap
>running; learned better.
Well, you simply *must* fill us in on *every last detail*, please!
>By the way, your box looks interesting from nmap, but I'm too new
>at this to do much more than see your open ports.
Oooh!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 04:05:37 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 08 Mar 2001 05:09:04
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 13:56:35 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> >>I've always maintained that Linux must have an EZ-HACK feature, judging
>> >by the ease in which "hackers" compromised entire university computer
>> >labs for their DDoS assault on Ebay, Amazon, Microsoft and several
>> >others last summer. It was reported that a large majority of the
>> >machines used in the attack were compromised Linux boxes.
>>
>> Put up or shut up. The box is smith203-1.rutgers.edu.
>
>I never said that I was a hacker or possessed the skills. However,
>it doesn't seem like it's that difficult seeing as how there were
>fields of Linux boxes compromised within a short period of time
>for these attacks.
You're lying; we can tell.
>I could set up a Windows box that you wouldn't be able to hack
>either, but it wouldn't prove anything.
That's very doubtful.
>The fact of the matter is, unless you actively pursue updates
>and patches and keep up on your security, your OS is a sitting
>duck.
>
>Linux isn't magically secure just because it's Linux, as you
>would have us to believe.
Who? Who would have us believe what? YOU would have us believe Linux
is insecure, and you pretend that there is someone saying it is
perfectly secure? No; we have all said it is simply secure, and you are
wrong, and know it, and are trolling.
>You make it seem like Windows is inherently unsecure and Linux
>is inherently secure, which is a pile of dog shit.
Windows *is* inherently insecure; Linux is inherently secure. There is
no "seems" about it. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 04:08:55 GMT
WHY? Why do you bother, Chad? WHY???????
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:58:43
GMT;
>
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 00:21:03 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> >I was complaining that people out there are blindly trusting SSH
>> >for secure information transfer and there are several ways in which
>> >that information security could be compromised
>>
>> We've already been through this. It's very unlikely to happen. People
>> who care enough about security that they're unwilling to take any risks
>> at all do not "blindly trust" anything.
>
>The fact remains that there are thousands of installed Linux and
>BSD systems which have an older version of SSH installed on them.
>There hasn't been a concerted effort to educate them to the faults
>of the "flawed" SSH1 protocol they're still using. The worst I've
>seen so far is a posting to the SSH developer's group complaining
>about the same thing I've been saying. No one seems to care.
>
>
>>
>> > and the SSH folks
>> >don't seem to care
>>
>> Yes they do. They take bugs very seriously. The OpenBSD developers are one
>> of the few groups who proactively stomp out potential security holes (AKA
>> bugs)
>
>They fix the bugs, yes, I never said they didn't, but they're not
>letting people know that there are serious issues with the SSH1 protocol
>and that people should upgrade their older SSH software to the newer
>versions ASAP.
>
>>
>> > let alone attempt to warn the community of
>> >the problems in the "fundamentally flawed" SSH1 protocol.
>>
>> It is considerably less "fundamentally flawed" than the vast
>> majority of services. Perhaps if there were large amounts of users
>> running nothing besides ssh, it would be an issue. However, on a
>> "typical UNIX machine" that is running NFS, NIS, telnet, ftp, httpd,
>> sendmail, and lpd, ssh is the least of your concerns (even if it's the
>> "fundamentally flawed" version)
>>
>> BTW, OpenSSH supports ssh2.
>
>But it also _STILL_ supports SSH1, even though it's known to have
>serious and compromising flaws.
>
>-Chad
>
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 04:11:13 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 9 Mar 2001 20:54:39
>On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:58:43 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
[...]
>Your characterisation of the so-called "flaws" is so exaggerated that
>I wonder if you're being outright dishonest and not merely stupid.
It takes you *this much* to "wonder"?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: You're stealing my money
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 04:13:47 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> It has come to my attention that, in spite of the simple
> terms of the EULA below (in the signature line), that
> certain people, in replying to my messages, are quoting
> my words. Please remember that these words are my
> intellectual property, and I have the right of due
> recompense for your usage of my words, notwithstanding
> that quoting the message can be construed as not
> making a copy, but merely a quote; and notwithstanding
> that some of my words may convey incorrect opinions that
> may be construed as analogous to bugs; however, I insist
> that the copying of any of my words be accompanied by
> a transmittal of funds to my account in the amount
> of US$ 49.99 per message quoted.
>
> Please note that my lawyers will be monitoring
> for compliance using a newsgroup filter.
>
> Have a nice day.
>
> Chris
>
> --
> [ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
So? Sue me.
--
He played the king as if afraid someone else would play the ace.
-- John Mason Brown, drama critic
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 04:13:51 GMT
Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 05 Mar 2001
20:46:49 GMT;
>Jon Johanson wrote:
>>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >
>> > No, that's the answer to the question "Why does the Windows
>> > NT/2000 user always obtain the next Service Pack".
>> >
>>
>> Actually, we have quite a few server not running sp1 - they didn't need it.
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/default.asp?Search=Keywords&LangIDCODE=20%3Ben-us&Value=SP1&OpSysID=925&Show=Alpha
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q265/3/81.asp
>
>You better git goin'! Better grab you SP1 and then git those
>hotfixes to fix it!
>
>Jess kiddin'. Here's what Microbesoft says about SP1:
>
>Service Pack 1 (SP1) provides the latest updates
>to the Windows 2000 family of operating systems.
>These updates are a collection of fixes in the
>following areas: setup, application compatibility,
>operating system reliability, and security. SP1 is
>not considered a required upgrade; Microsoft
>recommends that customers review the SP1
>documentation found under Learn More to determine
>whether to install SP1.
>
>> > yeeee haaaa!
>> >
>> > By the way, note that Service Pack is essentially
>> > a butt-fucking by Bill Gates.
>>
>> Kinda like how 2.4 is butt-fucking by hippies?
>
>Nasty, stinky, fat, Jolt-drinkin' hippies!
>With Cheez-Its on their beards!
ROTFLMAO!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: David Utidjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 23:16:10 -0500
Roberto Alsina wrote:
[some snippage]
> This is so-typical GPL advocacy.
>
> Q: If someone just took the BSDL code and relicensed it, why would anyone
> prefer it over the original BSDL version?
>
> A: They wouldn't. Before relicensing it, the code would have to be
> IMPROVED. This step is never mentioned by GPL advocates.
>
> This is where it gets interesting. Either you have
>
> a ) commercial software that's technically better than free software, and
> the proprietary version DESERVES being preferred, and people will PREFER
> paying for it, and there is no harm done,
>
> or
>
> b) commercial software that is not better than free software, and people
> will PREFER using the free version, and there is no harm done.
>
> Your choice.
>
> Of course if reality is a), the GPL simply prevents the creation of better
> software for users. They get bad software in the name of freedom, even if
> they WANT better software that is not free.
Ummmm... I don't quite see how this prevents a commercial software
company from creating better "non-free" software. It prevents a company
or individual from taking the "free" software and improving it AND
distributing it as "non-free" software. It does NOT prevent the company
or individual from taking "free" software improving it AND NOT
distributing it.
> So, the GPL is either a force slowing down the improvement of software, or
> it is neutral. In either case, the only reason for the GPL's existence is
> politics.
I disagree... I think you are making the assumption that no one will
want to improve and develope "free" software. By evidence of a lot of
really good "free" software that is being rapidly developed and
improved... I would say the evidence is that GPL does NOT slow down the
improvement of "free" software... nor make it neutral. I might even
argue that it actually accellerates the development of "non-free"
software... if and only if, the "non-free" software can be seen as an
improvement over the "free" software.
In the case of "bad" "non-free" software there is NOTHING the users can
do to improve that software... except take their dollars elsewhere. That
won't improve the "non-free" software very much.
In the case of "bad" "free" software the user CAN improve it themselves
OR they can give their dollars to someone who will. That WILL improve
the "free" software.
> That is not necessarily bad, itsjust never said.
I think it is never said because it is misunderstanding of how it works
at best... definitely flawed... and fallacious at worst.
-DU-...etc...
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Cuts both ways
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 04:20:01 GMT
Said Keldon Warlord 2000 in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 5 Mar 2001
21:19:52 -0800;
>
>"Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:7bYo6.3645$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Keldon Warlord 2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > ATTN: Linux idiots
>> > he was joking.
>>
>> Ohhhhhhhhh. The big bad warlord gets angry.
>> Ohhhhhhhhh.
>>
>>
>
>oh, I aint angry. I'm just pointing it out to all of the Linux-losers that
>still live in their mommy's basement.
>
>(you know who you are...)
Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11 Mar 2001 20:30:23 -0800
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't have to. You just did it yourself. Read above.. "the M$-extended
> work which is not free." The key difference in our viewpoints seems to
> be this: You say that as long as you can get the original version from
> the original source, that no freedom has been lost. I say that this isn't
> necessarily so, since the original version can be made useless by having
> the proprietary extensions become the norm.
No, I didn't say that "no freedom has been lost". I said that the
"free"ness of the BSDL code has not been affected by M$ whish what
was being discussed, not your freedom or the freedom of M$'s derivative.
This is not hard to understand. It only leads to confusion to think of
all software which is somehow derived from some other software in the
copyright sense as one thing that gets and looses freedom as "it" is
variously licensed. "It" isn't "it". "They" are different things,
each with its own set of shared owners and possibly different licenses.
If any "freedom" has been lost in the sense you're probably meaning,
it's your freedom to benefit from M$'s work. BSDL users prefer to let
(with few restrictions) other people control the use of their own work
and not "charge" people for using the code by insisting that they
license away most of the fruits of their efforts. It's an ethical thing.
They publish free software for reasons other than to try to get other
people to do what they don't always want to (or can) do, namely license
away rights in their work for no money. It relates to another kind of
freedom.
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No problem with multiple GUI's
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 04:35:25 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > I like to think of multiple toolkits within the X series as a simple
> > way to keep from throwing up at home.
> >
> > They have to keep a pan under me at work.
> >
> > Windows mono-blather is extremely sickly. Especially when
> > combined with corporate-blather policy.
>
> Then why are you still in a job working on Windows Charlie?
Because they supply him with a pan for him under his desk for when he
vomits from looking at Windows all day (or at least he says so in what
you snipped). Not a lot of companies will go that far for their
employees.
At least, that's all I could make of it.
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux office, a possible future.....
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 05:03:08 GMT
mlw wrote:
>
> Brent R wrote:
> >
> > > The reason for that has a lot to do with AT&T, Microsoft's monopoly, etc.
> > > Anyone sufficiently educated with the history of the PC and modern operating
> > > systems could conclude it isn't because Microsoft did anything well.
> >
> > Besides marketing, and a good business plan, and just even having an
> > interest in the PC's before most other companies.
>
> AT&T's bull shit about owning unix after they had given it away. This caused
> UNIX to be too expensive. If UNIX were not encumbered in the late 1980's/early
> 1990's who knows what would have happened to DOS and Windows.
BTW, out of my own ignorance, why didn't Minix take off?
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
