Linux-Advocacy Digest #908, Volume #32 Mon, 19 Mar 01 22:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (mlw)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (mlw)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: What is user friendly? ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month ("Interconnect")
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (Mike Martinet)
Re: What is user friendly? ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Here's a load of horse crap (Ed Allen)
Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month ("Interconnect")
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (mlw)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Masha Ku' Inanna")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 21:56:15 -0500
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > David Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote in message <992mrk$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.
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > If you can't compile it FROM THE SOURCE THEY GIVE YOU, then it's
> worthless.
>
> Fortunately you CAN so it's quite worthy.
You don't even know what you are talking about do you?
Microsoft source code requires the full specification of the build environment,
access to the constant updates as development happens, compilers, assemblers,
linkers, resource tools, build machines, yadda yadda. Windows NT/2K is very
complex. Just look at the NT/2K DDK build environment.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[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 21:57:07 -0500
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:994gvn$e6d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Ayende Rahien wrote in message <992mrk$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.
>
> Untrue, you CAN do a build of the software.
Have you ever built NT source code?
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 21:54:04 -0500
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> Andy Walker wrote:
> >
> > Jan Johanson wrote in message <3ab419a9$0$48766$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/11929.html
> > >
> > >"Lockheed Martin is working on the design of the new US CVN 77 aircraft
> > >carrier, and Microsoft Federal Systems is to co-operate in the ship's
> > >information technology architecture. This will, we kid you not, be based on
> > >Windows 2000. Microsoft Consulting Services will meanwhile chip in with
> > tech
> > >support during the ship's software design, development and deployment."
> > >
> > >Cause the Navy knows what everyone else already knows, W2K is rock solid
> > >enough to trust lives to.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > This seems to explain why Americans keep hitting friendly troops then....
> > How about a competition for the first person to knock out the U.S. carrier
> > with the I love you virus!
>
> LOL! FULL SPEED AHEAD! DAMN THE TORPEDOES!! (WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOUR
> MOUSE POINTER FROZE UP!!)
Unfortunately, the US Navy has a history of trying to deny technological
reality in deference of emotional favorites.
See: Billy Mitchell sinking a battle ship with a couple of bombs
dropped from aircraft.
The admirals of the 1920's claimed that Mitchell wasn't "fighting
fair"....conveniently forgetting that neither does the enemy....
as they were so DEVESTATINGLY reminded on the morning of Dec 7, 1941,
when the Japanese destroyed or put out of action more than half of
the Pacific Fleet's battleships....with aircraft-delivered weapons.
--
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: "Quantum Leaper" <[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: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 02:55:51 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Shades wrote:
> >
> > > Unix has half a dozen GUI's that are so good that Mafia$oft
> > > copied (in their own, usual, less-than-elegant way) as much of
> > > this functionality as they could.
> > >
> > > Now....if Unix is supposedly soooooooooo difficult to use, then
> > > please explain why Mafia$oft is copying Unix ON THE BASIS OF
> > > EASE OF USE.
> > >
> >
> > I do not understand this statement. Where is MS copying Unix on ease of
> > use? All the newest GUI's I have seen on Linux look a lot like
something
> > I have seen before.
>
> Ah..more like what you've seen before were copies of Unix GUI's already
> in existance. For example, the Windows2000 GUI is a (faulty)
implementation
> of the unix/linux-land Enlightenment GUI.
>
I remember the Mac users were saying MS copied Mac with Windows 95, but
after I talked with alot of my friends who have used alot of different OSs,
included Unix. The general feeling is MS copies EVERYONE but only tried to
take the best parts. BTW you can run Enlightenment (clone) on NT4 as an
explorer replacement, might ever be available for 2K.
>
> Here's a Hint....
> Neither Microsoft nor Apple invented the GUI. In fact, even the total
> of their work COMBINED is only a small fraction of the work done on
> GUI development.
>
Debatable, but they have the 2 biggest selling GUIs out there.... Most
Unix boxes, I have seen are CLI.....
> There have been GUI's for Unix going all the way back to early Sun
> Microsystems products in 1984.
>
Beat my GUI (GEOS) on my C64 by about year.
> The first GUI was one that was developed in the late-1970's by the Palo
Alto
> Research Corporation (PARC), which, at the time, was owned by Xerox.
> In the early 1980, morale at PARC was low, and Jobs was starting a new
> project at Apple...and wanted a GUI...most of the people at PARC left
> and hired in on the Macintosh project.
>
Wrong answer..... GUIs started in the 60s by Doug Englebart who also
invented the Mouse. Xerox was the first to try to make it into a product
but at 10K each, they didn't sell.
> So..here's the timeline:
>
> PARC's gui circa 1978
> Macintosh 1983
> SunWindows 1984
> Atari GEM 1985
> Commodore Amiga 1986
> XWindows protocol 1986
>
I'm not going to debate your timeline since I don't remember which was
first, but I though the Amiga was out in 1985, a very short time after
Atari. There are quite a few other GUIs out there you didn't mention.
> > not have any empirical proof that you can base it on. For the case of
> > Microsoft you have people from all over the world who have to focus on
> > getting their job done(not knowing the intricacies of the OS) and they
do it
> > mostly on Microsoft Windows. Why it seems odd that if everything works
so
>
> You have the EXACT same pointy-clicky functionality on Linux and Unix...in
fact,
> it has been available on Unix for FAR LONGER...
>
True but at a much great cost, until recently. Most users don't like to
dump all their software and start new again...
------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:03:10 +1100
Jon Johanson
Hehe nice Flame bait.
The $19.95 is for a service that you can CHOOSE.
Unlike Microsoft that FORCES you to pay.
Now do you understand the difference?
Regards
Mark
Jon Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3ab63151$0$70694$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 20:02:56 -0700
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
>
> I can. Mine. Never crashed under W2K. Never. Not once. Ever. Period. What
> did I do special? Loaded W2K, applied SP1, downloaded non-beta drivers and
> have enjoyed 100% uptime. Simple...
>From what I remember, an aircraft carrier has upwards of 5000 people on
it. Dozens of high-tech aircraft, numerous complicated systems - you
get the point. And your servers that have never crashed, what do they
run? A small city? You have enjoyed 100% uptime doing... what?
Serving web pages?
Your argument appears to be that W2k is, in your experience, stable
enough to be trusted to running an enormous military apparatus. Correct
me if I'm wrong.
If you're running traffic control for a city of 20,000 people on your
W2k machines, you'll have a match. If you're running traffic, insanely
over-used airport, sanitation, police, fire, Human Resources, medical,
recreation, national guard and food service for 5000 people, you'll
definitely have a match.
Are you doing that? That's the test.
Of course, the other test will be if the Navy continues to use Windows.
For that, we can only wait and see, I suppose. And hope this ship
doesn't face any really serious crises before the bugs are worked out.
MjM
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[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: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 03:00:11 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Shades wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 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?
>
> In the same way that the gasoline engine ripped the guts out of
> steam-powered automobile manufacturers.
>
The reason is gasoline engines are alot better than a steam power auto.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Here's a load of horse crap
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 03:01:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Weevil wrote:
>>
>> Shades <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:990osv$gbn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > I suppose those lightbulbs are innovative ideas in the software industry
>> and
>> > in the next picture he gets up and stomps all over them :-)
>> >
>> >
>> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/default.asp
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > [ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
>> >
>>
>> Q: How many Microsoft programmers does it take to change a light bulb?
>>
>> A: Three. Two to hold the ladder and one to hammer the bulb into the
>> faucet.
>
>Sorry, wrong answer. The correct answer is:
>
>None. If the bulb goes off then MS declares darkness the new standard.
That is the old answer but his provides enjoyment through
afterthoughts.
Like:
How many do they break before they figure they need something to
cushion the hammer blows ?
After making the cushion device and getting it into the faucet they
will need to make an extraction tool before they can run electric
wires through the water pipe.
They will need to hire more lawyers to patent this new technology
they are inventing.
Life is hard when you are a Softie.
--
GPL says
"What's mine is ours,
If you make *OUR* stuff better the result is still ours."
------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:08:21 +1100
Stop flame baiting.
The $19.95 is for a service, that if you chose to do yourself you could do
it for free.
E.g. RH model. You can service your own car Or pay someone to do it for you.
E.g. MS model. You must pay us to service your car. Even if you can do it on
your own.
Now are things becoming a little clearer. One represents choice and freedom
of action the other represents force and coercion.
Cheers
Mark
Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3ab6a96c$0$28231$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
>
> Oh really? Your crystal ball shiny and new? How did predicting red hat's
> stock prices look in that ball?
>
>
>
------------------------------
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 22:11:54 -0500
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > GreyCloud wrote:
> > >
> > > Andy Walker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jan Johanson wrote in message
> <3ab419a9$0$48766$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/11929.html
> > > > >
> > > > >"Lockheed Martin is working on the design of the new US CVN 77
> aircraft
> > > > >carrier, and Microsoft Federal Systems is to co-operate in the ship's
> > > > >information technology architecture. This will, we kid you not, be
> based on
> > > > >Windows 2000. Microsoft Consulting Services will meanwhile chip in
> with
> > > > tech
> > > > >support during the ship's software design, development and
> deployment."
> > > > >
> > > > >Cause the Navy knows what everyone else already knows, W2K is rock
> solid
> > > > >enough to trust lives to.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This seems to explain why Americans keep hitting friendly troops
> then....
> > > > How about a competition for the first person to knock out the U.S.
> carrier
> > > > with the I love you virus!
> > >
> > > LOL! FULL SPEED AHEAD! DAMN THE TORPEDOES!! (WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOUR
> > > MOUSE POINTER FROZE UP!!)
> >
> > NO!!!! NO!!!! Don't start Word NOW!!! NO!!!!!
> > *poof*
> > BSOD
> > boom
> > glug...
> > glug...
> > glug...
> >
>
> What does "BSOD" stand for? Never heard of it - must be a unix term.
You must not have any Windows experience. BSOD is the "Blue Screen Of Death."
A constant reminder ho bad MS really is.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Masha Ku' Inanna" <[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 22:10:43 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Um...
> >
> > No.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Unless you consider most of Eurpoe, and a smidgen of Northern Africa to
have
> > practically conquered the "world" would I agree.
> >
> > But no.
>
> Yes
>
> > They over ran a good part of Eurpoe, paraded in Paris, goose-stepped
almost
> > to Moscow, and played in the Sahara, babysat Mussolini, and tried to
wipe
> > out the whole of Eurpoe's various "non-Aryan" ethnicities.
> >
> > But they had far more to conquer if they were to conquer the world.
>
> They were very close to conqueroring Europe and Russia, it could easily
> have gone either way. Had they succeeded, they would have been very
> powerful and could have had a fair crack at the rest of the world.
>
> Had they defeated Russia and the rest of Europe, they would have been in
> a very, very strong position.
Conquering a capital city does not generally assure that the whole of the
country will be subdued. How could the German Army have secured and
maintained a total hold over the whole of the Soviet Union's vast land mass?
It might be possible that they came close to conquering Europe, and had they
sent the Panzers in at Dunkirk, and not let an entire army escape, it is
possible that Britain would have most likely been far more agreeable to
negotiations with Germany.
(letting an army escape ... Dunkirk, and then Iraq... Lessons hardly
learned..)
Although Germany hurled against the Soviet Union the most powerful army ever
assembled (some 250+ divisions, comprising three whole Army Groups), her
supply lines, and manpower resources could never have insured her ability to
occupy and subdue the whole of the Soviet Union. Even if they conquered
Moscow that first winter, that would only account for roughly a quarter of
the area of the Soviet Union.
Then they'd have had to deal with both or either of the Atlantic and or
Pacific oceans, and vastly stretched supply lines and taxed resources to be
able to consider mounting an offensive on American soil.
Hardly close to conquering the world. :>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
