Linux-Advocacy Digest #887, Volume #32 Mon, 19 Mar 01 12:13:02 EST
Contents:
Linux @ $19.95 per month ("Jon Johanson")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Craig Kelley)
Re: What is user friendly? ("Shades")
Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month (Brian Langenberger)
Re: What is user friendly? ("Shades")
Re: the mismeasure of scale (The Danimal)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (mlw)
Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month (Nick Condon)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jon Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Linux @ $19.95 per month
Date: 19 Mar 2001 10:21:05 -0600
http://www.redhat.com/products/network/service_changes.html
I guess this is where it'll be going... can't afford to keep leaking money
out of every oriface forever...
So, this is like paying $19.95 per month to use Windows Update - MS updates
have been, are and will always be free.
Wonder what trojan's can be hacked onto the back of their subscription
agent... time will tell...
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[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: 19 Mar 2001 09:24:29 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > What's there to gloat about? This means they won't use Linux either,
> since
> > > they claim they won't use *ANY* software developed in America, and much
> of
> > > Linux is developed in American by Americans.
> > >
> > > Sure, they could examine the source themselves, but it doesn't sound
> like
> > > they're making informed decisions based on actual evidence, so I doubt
> they
> > > would disect Linux to prove to themselves that there aren't back doors.
> >
> > Just curious: Why do you always go into Super Microsoft Defense Mode
> > every time something silly like this happens? If the NSA registry key
> > had nothing to do with the NSA, then Microsoft did a very poor job of
> > communicating it to the public and misunderstandings like this are
> > inevitable (if it is a misunderstanding).
>
> I'm not in any kind of defense mode. I'm simply pointing out the flaw in
> the logic.
>
> First, it wasn't a registry key. If you knew anything about the issue,
> you'd know that. So stop pretending you do know something about it while
> parroting things you think you've heard elsewhere.
Just going by the /. story I saw; not the most reliable source I must
admit. I figure that if the NSA wants to put secret security measures
into Windows, they'll do it regardless.
> Second, MS did the only job they could do on the issue. They released their
> official view, and paranoia mongers went flying off the wall with various
> made up theories. There is little they could have done other than
> publishing their source code, and even then the paranoid would have claimed
> it was doctored code.
>
> Whether it was good enough or not is irrelevant. Experts agree that there
> is no need to put secret backdoors into the mechanism being used, there are
> much easier and simpler ways to compromise security.
Which is why I think the whole thing is silly (and you should too).
> > Not only do you go into defense mode, but you must sneak in attacks on
> > Linux. Why? What does code verification of software on Linux have to
> > do with being unable to do the same under Windows? What is an
> > "informed decision" in your mind? Using Microsoft software
> > exclusivly?
>
> Of course not. My argument is simply that if the german military is so
> paranoid that they're not going to trust the largest producer of software in
> the world, why should they trust companies much smaller, with a lot less to
> lose if intentional back doors are discovered?
But you *can* verify open source code, you *can't* verify closed
source code. It seems like a pointless argument to talk about trust
in a situation like this. If the German military wants to verify
every line of code they use, then they need to use open source
software.
The whole NSA argument they are making seems like a red herring and
mostly political, and as such there isn't much Microsoft could do to
make them happy.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Shades" <[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 11:31:04 -0500
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Anonymous wrote:
> >> > unix: user hostile
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> Microsoft propaganda.
> >
> It's also equally clear that Linux is running 50% of the WWW
Yes but most of those web servers aren't doing too much. Check out
Netcraft to see the MS is running most of the SSL severs. Most
of those are Ecommerce machines.
>
> Linux not only IS doing it, it's actually beating Windows
> on the desktop. W2k professional or ME appears like a pancake
> peice of low performance shit when you compare it to a modern
> Gnome or KDE2.
>
Um... the statement that Linux is beating MS is not even close to true.
Check the numbers.
> Xwindows has had such a powerful affect on Microsoft they
> are trying to emulate it with their BRAND NEW XBOX product.
>
> Now what the fuck are you going to say?
>
I am going to say this has to be a joke. XBox is a W2k machine
running video games. The X stands for X generation or something
like that not X Windows. XWindows has had not effect on MS.
They think it is a goofy clunking GUI that has been around for
years and has only minimal economic impact. Sorry dude...
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:29:22 +0000 (UTC)
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jon Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: http://www.redhat.com/products/network/service_changes.html
: I guess this is where it'll be going... can't afford to keep leaking money
: out of every oriface forever...
Assuming that RedHat == Linux is going to piss a lot of Linux users off.
In actuality, it's $19.95 for access to RedHat's premium auto-update
facilities. If you don't like it, update by hand (rpmfind.net)
or switch to Debian. The distro and updates themselves are just as
free as ever.
: So, this is like paying $19.95 per month to use Windows Update - MS updates
: have been, are and will always be free.
So Windows 95, 98, 98SE and ME are free? That's new.
: Wonder what trojan's can be hacked onto the back of their subscription
: agent... time will tell...
Probably the same ones that are hacked onto the Windows updater...
------------------------------
From: "Shades" <[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 11:32:53 -0500
>
> You obviously haven't worked on any HP, Sun, or SGI machines with
> version 1990 or later versions of Unix.
>
> The learning curve for these systems is SHALLOWER than windows.
>
Well then I suppose Sun/HP and SGI are going to be winning the desktop
anyday? Hmm?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:34:27 -0500
From: The Danimal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: the mismeasure of scale
Anonymous wrote:
> aaron wrote:
> > Anonymous wrote:
> > > then there are those who are in business and understand economies of
> > > scale. not to mention the cost of paying a headcase unix guru to be snotty
> > > and obnoxious whilst smelling up the office and dripping twinkie crumbs on
> > > the server and making rtfm sounds with his porcine cakehole.
> >
> > It takes a minimum of FIVE Windows adminstrators to get the same productivity
> > of ONE Unix administrator.
That's because Unix administrators don't have to cope with the
same types of users. The daunting complexity of Unix selects for
highly self-sufficient users. This is like comparing the productivity
of two physicians, one who treats terminally ill elderlies and
the other who treats healthy young people. You'd be naive to think
the doctor with the higher patient death rate is inferior. You have
to compare them on the same patients.
The low level of real-world compatibility in Unix systems discourages
people from connecting them to random hardware devices and relentlessly
installing new kinds of application software as is routine with Windows
computers. This reduces the number of incompatibility headaches for
administrators but it also means Unix computers are not as generally
useful. Unix computers are for the most part more specially useful---that
is, people tend to use them for smaller numbers of more specialized
tasks, rather than as general purpose information appliances.
> > The last time I worked for EDS, a mere TWENTY Unix administrators did
> > ALL systems administration for approximately 15,000 of Unix machines
> > throughout General Motors, all over the country.
What kinds of users were using those computers, and what were they
doing with them?
Suppose an engineer is running some specialized technical application.
The engineer is probably technically competent. The engineer probably
knows a lot more about that particular application than any Unix
administrator does. The engineer's job requirements include being
able to keep his/her own tools running. The engineer is not afraid
to read manuals. The engineer has probably taken some programming
courses, and may even be a pretty good programmer in his/her own
right.
But most of all, the engineer spends most of his/her time running
that one application. Once s/he learns how to do that, there's little
for the administrator to administer.
Administration problems generally indicate how unfamiliar the users
are with what they're doing at the moment. Which means, essentially,
how many users are working at the edge of their abilities, trying new
things, and experiencing the high disaster rates typical of any sort
of exploration.
Crime rates are high in boom towns and low in retirement communities
where old people go to die.
> > Conversely, twenty Windows administrators have a very hectic time
> > keeping ONE 1,500 user site running properly.
Of course. That reflects the lower average technical competence of
a Windows user. If you moved all those people over to Unix, your
administrative costs would certainly not decrease. It's more likely
that your administrative costs would explode, at least initially.
What percentage of the general population do you think has the
mental capacity to master things such as the Unix shells,
regular expressions, the 'find' command, and vi on their own?
Consult the IQ chart:
http://www.sciam.com/specialissues/1198intelligence/1198gottfredbox2.html
Unix is suitable for people in the IQ range under "Gathers, infers
own information." According to Gottfredson's article:
http://www.sciam.com/specialissues/1198intelligence/1198gottfred.html
a person with a low IQ requires close supervision and up to
six times longer overall to learn what a person with a high IQ
picks up on his or her own. Considering that even a smart person
requires several years to become reasonably competent with Unix
the prospects for it ever becoming a truly mass phenomenon in
its classical form are not promising. Is there any chance of
putting the bulk of the population through 10 years of compulsory
Unix education?
Plus the high level of real-world compatibility in Windows systems
encourages people to purchase every imaginable type of hardware doodad
and attempt to plug it in. Toss in the world's largest software library
and Windows systems have BY FAR the greatest scope for multivendor
incompatibility problems.
If Linux became equally popular it would have a comparable number
of multivendor headaches. At the moment, Linux probably has *MORE*
multivendor problems than Windows, but most of these are so
outrightly fatal that they discourage users from trying adventurous
things that generate support costs.
In other words Windows costs a lot to support because it's so good
that people think it's better than it is.
> > When I was at Kmart headquarters, a 2,500 Windows-users site, they had
> > close to 100 Windows administrators.
> >
> > If this was running Linux or Unix, the necessary support staff for desktop
> > computers would be under a dozen people.
Sure, because most of those Windows users would simply give up
as soon as they looked at their first man page.
To make a good case you need to analyze a representative set of
Windows technical support incidents and explain how Linux solves
those problems without introducing more problems.
By far the best way to reduce upgrade costs is to make sure your
new system does everything the old system did, in addition to whatever
new features you're buying the new system to get. That way the new
system does not call attention to itself. It does not get in the
way of the users. It does not destroy the massive existing value
of pre-existing knowledge. By far an organization's most valuable
computer-related asset is the knowledge of its people.
Esperanto is a much more efficient and logical way to communicate
than English. It has a simple, regular grammar and is vastly easier
to learn and use correctly than any language that evolved spontaneously.
Anybody who recognizes Linux as being better than Windows should
be all over Esperanto.
So why doesn't any large company order its people to communicate
only in Esperanto? Because the cost of dealing with the
inefficiencies of English is microscopic compared to the cost
of translating everything you're doing now into Esperanto. Doh!
Learning is the most costly human activity. It's the largest
component of capital stock. Throwing away your knowledge is like
burning down your factories, only worse because at least when
you burn down an old factory you can get rid of a lot of worn-out
equipment. Knowledge does not degrade with use; it gets better
with use (although it can become irrelevant if external requirements
change).
For Linux to become a serious competitor to Windows it must
be compatible with Windows on at least an application level.
Perhaps the high cost of Windows administration suggests that people
are trying to do TOO MUCH with their computers, but this is not a
Windows problem. "Too much" in this context would mean attempting to
combine hardware and software from multiple vendors in ways those
vendors did not anticipate, or by users who lack the ability to
do what they are attempting. If users are pushing the envelope
they are going to have problems, no matter what OS they are running.
The question then becomes why are users doing this? To me it sounds
more like an industry infrastructure problem than anything to do
with the OS. Vendors need to come up with a better way to tell
users which combinations of their products will work.
There's also a massive need for better error diagnosing. Computers
are tools for handling information, and the most critical information
is whatever information you need to keep the computer itself running.
Every error message should include a unique identifying code (with
every application having its own distinct error code namespace,
much like I.P. addresses) and should allow the user to click on
a hyperlink that will automatically retrieve the latest accumulated
knowledge about (a) the conditions that cause the error and
(b) how to fix it. Currently the ridiculously poor organization
of the industry forces thousands of people to independently
rediscover the solutions to the same problems. It's as if the
industry is in denial about the nature of errors and what kind
of social organization is necessary to deal with them intelligently.
--- the Danimal
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:42:24 -0500
Jon Johanson wrote:
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Andy Walker wrote:
> >
> > "Blue Screen of Death" has a whole new meaning.
>
> Fortunately that's not an issue with any properly configured system,
> especially not a W2K system hardened for military use - silly boy...
Look who is being silly. According to Microsoft's sponsored tests, by
NSTL, Windows 2000 has a MTTF of 2839. That's 118 days. So, just before
they enter battle, they should reboot. Or they should never be out at
sea for more than three months. Give me a break.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month
Date: 19 Mar 2001 16:54:35 GMT
Jon Johanson wrote:
>http://www.redhat.com/products/network/service_changes.html
>
>I guess this is where it'll be going... can't afford to keep leaking
>money out of every oriface forever...
>
>So, this is like paying $19.95 per month to use Windows Update - MS
>updates have been, are and will always be free.
How very naive.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:57:48 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 18 Mar 2001
12:47:15 -0600;
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:992igb$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.
Erik Funkenbusch: King of the Argument from Ignorance; Lord High Sock
Puppet, Extraordinare.
>> 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.
That's because you can't afford it. But when the "commercial grade
locks" cost $180 every three years, and the custom designed vault doors
are free in perpetuity, the question remains: do you lock your doors,
without any evidence at all that someone's going to steal your stuff?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:57:50 GMT
Said Jay Maynard in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 18 Mar 2001 03:09:33 GMT;
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:02:23 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>What difference does it make to you that M$ has made billions of dollars?
>>I would like to give them less more of it. Is that somehow difficult to
>>grasp, that I would expect vendors to provide service, rather than rip
>>people off, force shoddy goods on them, and put the money in the bank?
>
>I would like to give them less of it, too...but, unlike you, I do not
>believe that their making money is fundamentally immoral.
I don't find making money to be immoral at all, nor unethical. Anyone
who insists I do obviously believes profiteering is moral and ethical,
as that is all I have ever criticized.
>>>I'm certainly no fan of the company, but I do not begrudge them having made
>>>money.
>>Nor would I, if they'd ever made any money, as in earned it. They're a
>>criminal organization, who have monopolized. Only a moron would be a
>>fan of the company.
>
>I agree about their monopolization - hell, I was an OS/2 bigot for years, I
>can't believe anything else - but I do *not* believe that making money off
>of software, itself, is either illegal, immoral, or fattening. You are
>arguing that they should not have made any money at all, and I cannot and
>will not ever agree to THAT idea.
You're getting the cart before the horse. I don't see anything at all
wrong with making money "off of software". Unfortunately, the nature of
software makes it rather easy to *profiteer*, rather than make money,
off of it. The distinction is whether your "profits" come from adding
value, or restricting availability. It is a subtle point, but that's
the very problem. Since it cannot be ascertained where that point is,
software developers rampantly and willfully profiteer, purposefully
making their products less interoperable, creating proprietary data
formats, and maintaining the very code they propose to profit on as a
trade secret. They're not making money off of software; they're
exploiting software to make money off of their victims.
I am arguing that they should have made money, not profiteered; if we
could trust them not to screw us, we wouldn't even need the GPL to begin
with.
>>>Further, I'm happy they used the BSD networking code - for the
>>>alternative is *not* that they would not have made as much money, or that
>>>they would not have sold their software, but that they would have sold *just
>>>as much* software, but with a broken IP implementation that the rest of the
>>>world would have to live with. Therefore, I believe the BSD license has
>>>actually saved the world a lot of heartache.
>
>>Therefore, you're a moron.
>
>Huh? I'm typing this in a TeraTerm window on Win2K right now. I run Win2K
>not because I want to, but because I have to. If I had the choice, I'd run
>Linux and OS/2, but I don't. Since I'm stuck with Win2K, I'm much happier
>that the network stack I'm using right now *works*. What in any of that
>makes me a moron, to anyone but an unreasoning zealot?
What about being a reasoning non-zealot made you assume that W2K's IP
network stack works only because of the BSDL?
>> Here I am, having a relatively calm
>>discussion with Les, pointing out how he couldn't *possibly know*, and
>>frankly I don't think he can imagine, what the alternative is, and here
>>you come out of the woodwork to put a bow on it. Just how clueless are
>>you, man?
>
>I live and work in the real world. I see that folks often have to do things
>they wouldn't otherwise do, because of external factors they have no control
>over. I see no way at all they would have sold less software, under any
>circumstances, enough to make a difference. IBM's total ineptitude at
>marketing doomed OS/2 far more than M$'s monopolistic tactics, as abhorrent
>as you (and I, for that matter) find them.
So lets just chalk this up to "I make unreasoning assumptions and then
call anyone who disagrees with me an unreasoning zealot."
>>>>Thanks for all your freaking help, man. No wonder the RMS wrote the
>>>>GPL.
>>>RMS committed the GPV well before M$ became the behemoth it is today.
>>"Committed the GPV". Christ; why not just put up a banner in your sig
>>that says "ignore what this putz says; he wouldn't know an argument if
>>you handed to him."
>
>Only to an unreasoning zealot. Others will at least listen.
Why would anyone but an idiot listen to such obviously biased rhetoric?
>Now, how about answering the argument? What possible connection can M$'s
>monopolistic tactics have had on RMS' creation of the GPV when they happened
>AFTER HE DID IT?!
They were the very tactics he anticipated which caused him to create the
GP*L*.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
