Linux-Advocacy Digest #875, Volume #32 Sun, 18 Mar 01 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (NF Stevens)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and misleading claims about GPL software being
free (Pat McCann)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Yet more XBox bogification... (Alan Baker)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Charles Lyttle)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Charles Lyttle)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Charles Lyttle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens)
Crossposted-To: misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:45:41 GMT
"JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>Look, those who don't like the GPL will have one of two reasons (perhaps more):
>
>1) The license is bad.
>2) The people associated with it are untrustworthy, and have caused problems
> due to their misleading information.
No. The reason some people don't like the GPL is that it does not allow
them to incorporate code licensed under it into proprietory, closed
source software. AFAIAC that is a good thing.
Norman
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 16:48:27 -0600
"Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "CR Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > The real truth is that Germany is still pissed that MS included
> > Diskeeper
> > > > technology whos CEO is a scientologist.
> > > Already forgotten the "NSAKEY" backdoor? That was the "backup" key
that
> > > MS put in the OS in case they (they being MS) "forgot" the primary key
> > > and needed to update your software.
> >
> > That would be the backdoor that one of the top cryptologists in the
world
> > says he doesn't believe exists.
> >
> > Bruce Schneier, author of Applied Cryptography and considered a
formemost
> > expert in cryptogrophy chimed in on the entire NSAKEY incident saying
that
> > the paranoia mongers arguments simply didn't make sense.
> >
> >
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-9909.html#NSAKeyinMicrosoftCryptoAPI
> >
> > "But it's not an NSA key so they can secretly inflict weak cryptography
on
> > the unsuspecting masses. There are just too many smarter things they can
do
> > to the unsuspecting masses."
>
> Erick has tried to change the subject. Note that we are talking about
> two different things : one is the existance of backdoors. The other is
> the existance of NSA specific backdoors. Also note that Schneier doesn't
> say that backdoors don't exist.
I'm not changing the subject. I didn't bring up the NSAKEY issue, you did.
> Schneier makes the point that the NSA doesn't need a key for its
> specific backdoor. That doesn't mean that backdoors don't exist. The
> NSAKEY did exist and it was a backdoor deliberately put in by MS.
> Whether it had anything to do with No Such Agency or not is another
> matter. According to MS, it was just a spare in case they forgot their
> original key, according to NSA ""
It's not a back door in any traditional sense. All it does is allow MS to
replace crypto modules if the primary key becomes lost or corrupted.
replacing the module doesn't cause you to suddenly be able to decrypt stuff
that was encrypted with the earlier module, it just changes the algorithm.
It doesn't give you access to run programs or download data or whatever.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 18:00:22 -0500
Chad Everett wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 11:47:52 -0800, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >>
> >> GreyCloud wrote:
> >> >
> >> > J Sloan wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Dave Martel wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17679.html>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > German armed forces ban MS software, citing NSA snooping
> >> > > > By: John Lettice
> >> > > > Posted: 17/03/2001 at 18:59 GMT
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The German foreign office and Bundeswehr are pulling the
> >> > > > plugs on Microsoft software, citing security concerns,
> >> > > > according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel.
> >> > > > Spiegel claims that German security authorities suspect that
> >> > > > the US National Security Agency (NSA) has 'back door'
> >> > > > access to Microsoft source code, and can therefore easily
> >> > > > read the Federal Republic's deepest secrets.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "The Bundeswehr will no longer use American software ... on
> >> > > > computers used in sensitive areas..."
> >> > >
> >> > > This makes me quite proud of my German ancestry.
> >> > >
> >> > > j
> >> > To all... no one is safe from NSA's equipment! Go ahead and encrypt
> >> > ... you can't hide anything from those guys. They are a very scary
> >> > organization!
> >>
> >> That's what THEY WANT you to think.
> >>
> >> The truth is less fearsome.
> >
> >I used to work for them. I know. They make their own chips for their
> >own computer designs. Believe me, even if you shred a document they
> >have ways to put it back together again. Their custom computers can
> >decrypt any message that uses current encryption schemes and do it in 3
> >seconds, where it would take a Pentium III several thousand years to
> >do.
>
> This is simply not true. It would take "geological" time to break
> a decrypted message that uses a modern encryption algorithm..unless you
> have the key or the encrypted message along with its plaintext.
>
> The NSA is NOT the agency that they used to be. Technology is rapidly
> surpassing them.
>
> > But they also rely on more proven tactics to get information...
> >spying, electronic eavesdropping or outright theft! If one is on their
> >target list your screwed. Then if you think that your are secure in
> >your office and think you are free to discuss in private they will hear
> >you using their technology. Believe me, no one can hide from them once
> >they are on your trail. Before they hired me I had to go thru a two
> >week battery of psyhcological testing. They are very thourough. I saw
> >one gal run out of these tests only after 2 hours crying. Its a very
> >deep and probing test and its scary. Back in the 60's and early 70's it
> >used to be called No Such Agency. Harry Truman started the agency back
> >in the late 40's.
>
> The rigor of their security clearance procedures has nothing whatsoever
> to do with their ability to break modern encryption algorithms.
>
> You probably think the movie "Enemy of the State" is a documentary and
> believe everything you hear on Art Bell.
Art Bell....a man who can fill a whole ward at the insane asylum....
all by himself.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and misleading claims about GPL software
being free
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Mar 2001 14:58:55 -0800
Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> JD wrote:
> > So, in order
> > to SUPPORT the freeness of a piece of software, it should be required that the
>copyright
> > and license (wherever they are) be maintained and modified only as allowed.
>
> That logic sounds awfully familiar to me.
>
> Encumber the software in order to keep it free, eh?
Nice catch. JD's handling of "free" is remarkably GNU-like, with a
different but similarly arbitrary, grey, and fuzzy definition.
But for those who will make unfounded inferences from your too-short
rejoinder, I'll point out something that should not be missed.
JD wants to encumber the software and maybe certain (but not all)
derivatives with a few easily-tolerated terms, while GPL licensors
want to (or at least do) encumber the software and all derivatives
with (instances of) the GPL and all of its terms, including the
purely political discriminatory denial of the right to publish
derivatives by those developing closed source software. (I use
"political" in the sense of the GPL's attempt to construct through
license law, a perversion of copyright law, something that the
US supreme court has come down on when tried by US States.)
Please note that there's really two issues here:
1) JD's proposed license passes only a few terms of the license,
not the whole license (which isn't tolerable for many purposes).
(If it's well written. The BSDL and X*L aren't, BTW, but everyone
assumes they pass only a few terms which is nearly as good.)
2) JD's proposed license affects only unaltered copies of the software
and probably, like the BSDL, some modifications. It doesn't try to
attach itself to other software. A subroutine, or even a chunk
of code can be used in other software that is owned by others and
licensed differently.
Both are very much different from the encumberances carried by the GPL.
This brings to mind the subject of the use of "viral", but I'm not
in the mood to defend that. (It's along the lines of the above, but
might not be 100% defendable when used carelessly.)
I suspect that if you'll all give JD a chance to let his pride cool a
while, he'll adjust his position (and language) concerning the use of
"free". I long ago gave it up (mostly), though I still see red which I
read "this is free software" closely following a claim of ownership.
You'd never see that on beer unless it meant what it seems to mean (to
the general reader who doesn't understand the joke).
I try to assume that the uninformed reader will rightly assume that
"free software" means it is being licensed for no money and that the
informed reader will know better (to the extent of their informedness).
I also try to use it in quotes to remined readers that the term has an
eccentric meaning.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 18:01:53 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Well, they are claiming ther are backdoors without any real
> evidence.
> > > That
> > > > > means they're believing what they hear, rather than what they know
> to be
> > > > > fact.
> > > >
> > > > How can one be sure with closed source software? One has to depend on
> > > various
> > > > news reports, because one can not inspect the source.
> > >
> > > You've never heard of a disassembler? It's not uncommon for people to
> > > disassemble huge parts of OS's to prove such things. The license
> agreement
> > > isn't valid if it's used to cover up illegal behavior, so the
> no-disassembly
> > > clause would not be an issue.
> >
> > The Microsoft EULA specifically prohibits this.
>
> However, the law specifically allows it, regardless of EULA in various
> circumstances.
>
> > So, you are suggesting that the only way to trust a Microsoft system
> > is to violate your license agreement.
>
> You can't violate it if you don't agree to it. For instance, you could
> disassemble the code directly off the CD without ever installing it. In any
> event, as I said, the no-dissasembly clause is invalid if it's used to hide
> illegal activitiy.
>
> > Thank you for that telling admission, dumbfuck.
>
> Why do you always resort to profanity to back up your arguments, rather than
> facts?
Simply pointing out exactly what you are...DUMBFUCK.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yet more XBox bogification...
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:51:56 GMT
In article <gd9t6.87055$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9933mv$4gc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [crossposted]
>>
>> Look, I have no particular hatred of Microsoft,
>> but this is bullshit.
>>
>> First, we have this:
>>
>> http://boards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=3550576
>> http://www.mikekraus.de/lol.jpg
>>
>> Then we have this:
>>
>> http://xbox.ign.com/news/32476.html
>>
>> Now, is there any mention of it on xbox.com?
>>
>> http://www.xbox.com:/News/
>>
>> Golly gee whiz, no.
>>
>> I'll defend WindowsNT where it's warranted, and I'll
>> attempt to debunk statements that I think are untrue,
>> but this sort of crap is inexcusable, and it looks like
>> Microsoft is resorting to lying yet again, merely to boost
>> sales. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.
>
>So basically, some moron posts a lie to a message board,
>and suddenly it's news and suddenly it's fact.
>
>And remember, Adobe Photoshop is the ONLY application in
>the ENTIRE WORLD which can produce lens flares, right?
>So there they HAD TO HAVE touched it up?
>
>Give me a fucking break.
>
>Anyone can produce lens flares, and they probably
>duplicated or reproduced whatever photoshop's lens
>flare algorithm is, or close to it.
>
>It's a non-issue really, it's its sad to see IGN
>reporting this as "news".
Are you incapable of reading?
<http://xbox.ign.com/news/32476.html>
'Today, Microsoft released this statement on www.xbox.com:
"Some of the images for Amped released during Gamestock were enhanced to
illustrate some features that will be in the final product. While this
is a common practice for games so early in development, we apologize for
the confusion. No one intended to be deceptive. Everyone was so busy
prepping for Gamestock, that we just missed the fact that these were
labeled "concept art". Frankly, we're impressed with the skillz of those
digital sleuths! Nice work!"'
This was in one of the links that was provided in the original message...
...now you were saying?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 23:03:46 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Well, they are claiming ther are backdoors without any real evidence.
> That
> > > means they're believing what they hear, rather than what they know to be
> > > fact.
> >
> > How can one be sure with closed source software? One has to depend on
> various
> > news reports, because one can not inspect the source.
>
> You've never heard of a disassembler? It's not uncommon for people to
> disassemble huge parts of OS's to prove such things. The license agreement
> isn't valid if it's used to cover up illegal behavior, so the no-disassembly
> clause would not be an issue.
Do you think the German agencies haven't heard of disassemblers? This is
a pretty drastic move on their part. If Bill Gates is a high minded
person who would never under any circumstances cooperate with the US
Government in such a scheme, then the Germans are being unreasonably
paranoid. Or the Germans could have found evidence of the existence of a
backdoor.
Which do you think is more likely?
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 23:06:24 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > > This also means they won't use any Sun or Oracle product, or any of a
> > > thousand others. I guess they did a good job martyring themselves,
> > > but it's a pretty stupid move in general. Microsoft, Sun, and Oracle
> > > all make very good and useful products.
> > >
> > > I suppose if they had conclusive proof of it, it would make sense,
> > > but they don't, so it doesn't.
> > >
> > I think there is a confusion of who needs proof of what.
> >
> > It is perfectly reasonable, and correct, to require proof that something
> is
> > secure. It is stupid to assume something is secure unless you have
> "conclusive
> > proof" it is not.
> >
> > Microsoft provides no proof that its products are secure.
> >
> > Should a military organization use software which it has no proof is
> secure?
> >
> > I bet Microsoft shows the source to the US military, I would also bet the
> same
> > is not said for the german military.
>
> Since the german army is going to purchase more than 1500 licenses, they can
> get the code and review it.
> Hell, considerring how much leverage they have, they could've done so long
> ago.
I'll bet they did, and got some code they weren't supposed to see, and
therefore, decided to dump MS.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 23:09:31 GMT
"Norman D. Megill" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> [snip]
> >> I would also bet that, if that is the case, that M$ is required to give
> >> the source to the Department of Defense in electronic form, AND give the
> >> military the right to modify the source code for their own internal use.
> >
> >Yep, we do! When we purchased some VAXes we got source code,
> >schematics, the whole works. Same for microsoft stuff. Of course
> >agreements of non-disclosure and security protecting their proprietary
> >software were in place. After reviewing their source code all I can say
> >is that the mil. now calls it messy-dos!
>
> It is true that selected organizations can get Windows source code. But
> there is no way a few dozen or even a few hundred of the organization's
> programmers could do an adequate audit of the source code. There is
> simply too much source code. And what a waste; since the NDA prevents
> sharing, each organization must duplicate the effort of the others.
> Even Microsoft's entire body of programmers has demonstrated time and
> again that they allow serious security holes to slip through.
>
> There is no substitute for having thousands, possibly millions, of
> programmers around the world scrutinize open source code for security
> holes. Not even Microsoft's coffers can buy that kind of auditing.
>
> --Norm
And how do you verify that the code you got is the code that was used in
the build?
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
