Linux-Advocacy Digest #883, Volume #32 Mon, 19 Mar 01 04:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Yet more XBox bogification... (Alan Baker)
Indrema article in NextGen (William Kendrick)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("David Brown")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("David Brown")
Re: What is user friendly? ("green")
Re: What is user friendly? ("green")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("David Brown")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("David Brown")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 03:15:24 -0500
Perry Pip wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 12:47:15 -0600,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:992igb$c30$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> No. They are claiming there *may* be backdoors, and that this
> >*possibility*
> >> is a risk not worth taking in certain situations.
> >
> >And your own programmes might be putting back doors in themselves.
>
> And maybe that's why when the Government hired me, in order to give
> the the security clearance required for my job, they had the FBI do a
> full background investigation on me fifteen years back into my
> personal life... interviewing college buddies, ex-girlfriends, former
> coworkers, etc., etc.
>
> >The difference is that I lock my door with commercial grade locks.
>
> And the military should use the commercial grade locks that you use to
> protect it's deepest secrets?? Even worse, a lock made by foriegners
> who may want to steal those secrets??
Now you know why Fuck-in-the-bushes isn't trusted with the security
of even a candy counter.
--
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 08:12:22 GMT
In article <3ab5af43$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Zed Mister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Uhm.... lens flare has been a part of Direct3D for a LONG time ... it was
>used extensively in Need For Speed: Porche Unleashed, and the version before
>that (I don't remember the name). Those games used Direct3D 5.0 and 6.0 as
>their 3D API. The lens flare in those games was actually much more advanced
>and looked a whole lot better than the Photoshop filter that was used in
>that demo screenshot.
So...
Direct3D produces lens flares that are a "whole lot better" than
Photoshop, but somehow Microsoft just forgot that it could do that?
The used a Photoshop lens flare to make the screenshot look worse?
Riiiiight.
>
>"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>> > '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. ...
>>
>> And we know how good MS is about ensuring that all their brag features
>actually
>> make it into their final products.
>>
>> Bobby Bryant
>> Austin, Texas
>>
>>
>
>
--
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: William Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Indrema article in NextGen
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 08:35:47 GMT
The latest issue (April 2001; to hit store shelves soon) of
Next Generation magazine (aka "NextGen") has an 8 page special feature
on the Indrema game console.
For those who haven't noticed it, the Indrema is a DV/Linux-based
game console designed around an x86 architecture. Along with playing
games, the unit sports DVD and MP3 support, "TiVo"-like features,
web and e-mail access, and a support structure for open source game
development.
Since the issue has only arrived to subscribers, the article isn't
on NextGen's website yet. Once it hits the newstands, they'll probably
put it online.
http://www.next-generation.com/
http://www.indrema.com/
-bill!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.newbreedsoftware.com/bill/indrema/
Indrema Informer
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 09:31:49 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote in message <1n7t6.50$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:992igb$c30$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> No. They are claiming there *may* be backdoors, and that this
>*possibility*
>> is a risk not worth taking in certain situations.
>
>And your own programmes might be putting back doors in themselves. Unless
>you do everything yourself, or have checked everything yourself thoroughly,
>there *may* be backdoors in almost anything, open source or not.
>
For most of us, we can rely on the fanatics out there who really do pour
over the source code for Linux and other open source software, looking for
backdoors and other security flaws. The vast majority of security
announcements for open source software concern potential flaws found by
carefully examining the code - these same people would be falling
overthemselves to tell the world if a maliscious back door was found.
Anyway, the German military (or EU beaurocrats, or whatever) have the
resources to examine the critical code themselves.
>> Simple question --- when you leave your house, do you lock the door? If
>so,
>> why do you do it? Do you have any evidence that between the time you
leave
>and
>> the time you come back, someone will come by and try to get in and steal
>> your stuff?
>
>The difference is that I lock my door with commercial grade locks. I don't
>use a custom designed vault door.
>
In the software world, it is the commercial grade locks that are subject to
back doors. In the real world, there are hundreds of lock smiths to choose
from - any one that tried to cheat would soon go out of business. Also, if
a lock company decided to make spare keys for every lock, then everyone
would know about it. But in the software world, there are only a very few
commercial lock makers, and it would only involve a couple of people to get
spare keys to every system.
The fact is, there was a so-called "NSA key" found in Windows. While it did
not turn out to be a back door, it may well have been used for testing such
an idea, and, more importantly, it shows that such a back door *could* be
put in Windows (or any other commerical OS for which the source is completly
hidden from end users). Even the NSA are not stupid enough to use the
letters "NSA" in a real back door, so there could easily be a real back door
in every Windows system without anyone outside NSA and a few key MS people
knowning about it.
Remember also what NSA's aim is - its job is to ensure the security of the
USA, and it does not recognize any reasonable boundaries as to how to do
that job. For the NSA, the end justifies the means, especially if it is
"only" foreigners who suffer along the way. In their determination to
preserve American "freedom", they have absolutely no regard for personal
freedom or privacy (even of American citizens). It is arguably a reasonable
attitude (perhaps even the only possible attitude) given the task in hand,
but it does mean that no one, not even allied governments (or even the US
government itself), should trust the NSA further than they could throw them.
Obviously, no one in their right mind would trust MS (whatever side of the
usual legal battles you stand on, however much you may think they were just
using "agressive business tactics", only the most drooling of wintrolls
would consider them trustworthy). Anyone who wants to be sure that the NSA
is not spying on them has to avoid closed-source software.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 09:38:16 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote in message <1sat6.212$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > You've never heard of a disassembler? It's not uncommon for people to
>> > disassemble huge parts of OS's to prove such things. The license
>agreement
>> > isn't valid if it's used to cover up illegal behavior, so the
>no-disassembly
>> > clause would not be an issue.
>>
>> So, your trying to tell me that the German Army should disassemble
various
>> American closed source software to validate that there are no back-doors?
>
>No, I'm saying they should disassemble *ANY* software they use, regardless
>of where it comes from, even their own programmers. That is, if they're
>really THAT paranoid. If not, they have to put trust somewhere, and hope
>they don't get screwed.
>
>> Have you EVER disassembled anything in your life? Do you grasp how huge a
>task
>> that is?
>
>For someone that does it for a living, not as huge as you might think.
>There are also tools that help to recreate assembly into pseudo-highlevel
>language.
>
>
Total drivel. Trying to disasseble a project the size of W2K, even assuming
it was well written, modular, carefully structured and the rest, would be an
infeasibly large task. You would not be talking man-decades (as someone
else mentioned) - you'd be talking man-millenia. You would be far, far
quicker designing a new OS from scratch, along with all necessary apps.
------------------------------
From: "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:50:00 +1000
> better performance.
>
> Considering that Windows9x, Windows NT (Neutered Technology), and
> Windows2000 are all compiled for 80386 or VERY early Pentium processors
> (Windows 2000 only)....I fail to see the disadvantage of being
> ALLOWED to do something that is, quite frankly, not even an option
> on the Mafia$oft platforms.
nt/4 was compiled for the 486.
most linux distros are still compiled with programs that are 386 compat.
(not that im complaining!!! :) I run older computers to. I can't even run
windows 9x on them.
------------------------------
From: "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:53:51 +1000
BSOD must be computer specific.
I only ever got compleate freezzes (mouse don't move. alt ctrl del don't
work. power button don't work)
note power button soft off. hold 5 sec's powers of fine as thats low level
hardware.
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Anonymous wrote:
> >
> > LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >aaron wrote:
> > > >> Anonymous wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > aaron wrote:
> > > >> > > Anonymous wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > aaron wrote:
> > > >> > > > > If you were to follow around one IQ-100 person all day, you
would
> > > >> > > > > be appalled by the vast number of incredibly stupid things
they do
> > > >> > > > > in the course of a day, and how many completely fucking
obvious
> > > >> > > > > connections they miss, how many winning opportunities they
pass
> > > >> > > > > up (because they either don't understand them, or they fail
to
> > > >> > > > > even recognize that the opportunity exists in the first
place).
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > now you know why i usually don't read your messages
> > > >> > > > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > p.s. windows is a pretty cool operating system
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Only in comparison to DOS.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Compared to anything else, Windows is comparable to a Formula-1
body
> > > >> > > slapped on top of a Ford Pinto with a sand-injection oil system
> > > >> > > and water-contaminated brake-lines.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > amiga: dead
> > > >> > beos: fringe
> > > >> > mac: fringe
> > > >> > os2: dead
> > > >> > next: dead
> > > >> > unix: user hostile
> > > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > >> Microsoft propaganda.
> > > >
> > > >no, personal experience.
> > > >a generally impassable learning curve = user hostile.
> > > >i was using windows to get work done ten minutes after installation.
> > > >u can't touch this
> > >
> > > Configuring Windows is my forte. I have been installing/reinstalling
> > > Windows Millennium for the last three days. I expect to have a well
> > > done installation within a week. I guess my idea of "installation" is
> > > different than most folks. Mine has to look good and be as efficient
> > > as possible (making Windows more nearly efficient is a Herculean
> > > task).
> >
> > define efficient. i define efficient as plug and play. if it ain't fast
> > enough for what i want to do i just buy a faster machine.
> >
> > > Being done in ten minutes is unbelievable.
> >
> > installers are cool.
> > i think it took another ten minutes to get office up and running.
> > connecting to the internet was trickier. that took about a half an hour
> > between typing the configuration stuff (news server, mail server, etc)
and
> > making the obligatory phone call to my perverted isp to resolve a few
> > issues on thier end.
> > adding new peripherals is pretty simple too. what with windows being
> > damn near universally supported and all.
> > i really don't see what your beef is.
> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> >
> > men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> > more even than death
> > - bertrand russell
>
> You must like the color blue very much.
> I don't use windows because even tho the apps are nice, and you try to
> say you want to get some work done, I don't see how you could get any
> work done when you have to fight lock-ups and BSODs all day long.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 09:45:50 +0100
Ayende Rahien wrote in message <992mrk$m2b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>
>> 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 think you have a *slight* misconception about what it means to view source
code. MS could quite easily hand the German military (or any other
customer) a CD with w2k, and another CD full of w2k source code - you have
absolutely no way of knowing that your w2k binary is in any way related to
your w2k source, since you cannot do a full re-build of all the software.
You can look at MS source, if you are big enough, but you cannot touch it.
This form of source code is worse than useless, since it gives you a false
sense of security - there is nothing to stop MS giving you a binary CD of
w2k + NSA back door, and a source CD of w2k - NSA back door. Or MS back
door, or whatever other code they don't want you to see.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 09:50:59 +0100
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Charles Lyttle wrote:
>>
>> "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?
>
>Simple you idiot...****YOU***** COMPILE IT.
>
>Stupid little shithead...
>
Control yourself (it's no wonder you are in so many killfiles) - I think he
was referring to the Windows source code. We all know that open source code
can be recompiled by the end user, but for most of the big customers who get
to view the MS source, they cannot compile it. The US military is an
exception. But because most customers are unable to compile the Windows
source, they may as well not have it in the first place, as they have no
guarentee of the relationship between the source and the binaries.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
