Linux-Advocacy Digest #58, Volume #33 Sat, 24 Mar 01 15:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Kulkis not Chad, Gates (was Re Unix/Linux Professionalism) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux dying (Roy Culley)
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is (David
Kankiewicz)
Re: Kulkis not Chad, Gates (was Re Unix/Linux Professionalism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Kulkis not Chad, Gates (was Re Unix/Linux Professionalism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better (Jay
Maynard)
Re: What is user friendly? (GreyCloud)
Re: More FUD from Ballmer ("Weevil")
Re: Yet more XBox bogification... (GreyCloud)
Re: Germany Denies Microsoft Ban (GreyCloud)
Re: CLI vs GUI (GreyCloud)
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Kulkis not Chad, Gates (was Re Unix/Linux Professionalism)
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 18:44:24 GMT
Chad Everett wrote:
>
> But any programmer who was was any good, if they're going to go to the trouble
> of modifying the Netscape identity string and re-compile, would modify the code
> so that it would generate the identity string by reading an external config
> file. That way the string could be changed at will, without re-compiling.
>
> You are either lying, or a very poor programmer. Maybe both.
All AK wants is to make it a little more difficult for the average dork
to enumerate his system. He doesn't want to change the string at will.
He wants it to stay the same. He went to a module and modified the
construction of the string. That is all he needed to do for his
purpose.
He could modify it to read from a config file, but his requirements
were satisfied by the simpler method.
Chris
--
[ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dying
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 18:05:40 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <wC2v6.22314$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> "Shares of Red Hat have lost 91 percent of their value since
> reaching its 52-week high of $64-1/16, while the Nasdaq
> Composite has lost 62 percent in the same period."
And Microsoft have lost over 60% of their value in the last 52 week
period. I think this affects a lot more investers than redhat.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 19:01:01 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> So basically, when Unix/Linux admins forget or are lazy about
> updating their system, It's their fault.
>
> However, when Windows admins do the same, It's Windows/MS'
> fault, right?
>
> Yet another Linux Penguinista Double Standard.
(You, too, can learn valuable techniques like this one if you
purchase the Rush Limbaugh tape "Sophistry for Simpletons --
Mockery and Disdain in Ten Easy Lessons".)
------------------------------
From: David Kankiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:05:16 -0800
Jay Maynard wrote:
>
> On 24 Mar 2001 11:55:19 +0000, Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >What if copyright was made non-transferable? So that the author (or,
> >in the case of works created as part of one's employment, the author's
> >employer) and his/her heirs are awarded copyright and this right is
> >not allowed to surrendered (eg sold.) The copyright owner would, of
> >course, be able to give (either freely or a fee, with or without
> >conditions) others the right to make copies but not the right to
> >control other's rights.
>
> Only if it weren't made retroactive, but only applied to copyrights
> created/registered/whatever after the law came into effect. Otherwise, you
> still run afoul of the uncompensated taking of property prohibition.
After pondering your non-retroactive argument, I've come to conclusion
that the
only way to change the copyright law would be to devalue all copyrighted
works
to as close to nothing as they can get. Thus, the uncompensated taking
of
property would not really matter because there would be nothing to
compensate
for, even if you still consider it property, it would be worthless.
Thanks for clearing up that thought in my head ;), -- I already have the
solution for making patents non problematic as well as a Trademark
solution,
better domain reference & virtual identity, I'm completely bored of IP
issues.)
>
> >This would seem to be more in line with the wording in the US
> >constitution than the current situation.
>
> Possibly, but it'll never happen.
Never say, "never happen!" No, no, no... You never know what some people
are
doing to remove the mindlessness from the situation.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Kulkis not Chad, Gates (was Re Unix/Linux Professionalism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 19:27:51 GMT
Said GreyCloud in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 24 Mar 2001 00:32:42
[...]
>Question: Are there any governments in the history of this world that
>was a pre-cursor to communism?
>
>I haven't found any. So I wonder where Marx got the idea??
It would seem to me that any country founded on the principle of
government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" might well
qualify, don't you think? ;-)
[...]
--
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.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Kulkis not Chad, Gates (was Re Unix/Linux Professionalism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 19:27:54 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 24 Mar 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> I have no political beliefs, Aaron, much as you may disagree with my
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I think it's funny how left-wingers like to proclaim that you have
>have no political beliefs.
I think its funny how, in comparison to you, just about anyone, even a
moderate like me, is a "left winger".
--
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: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 19:27:57 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 23 Mar 2001
13:20:04 -0500;
>On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> I thought maybe you had a point, but then you got to that "pitiful
>> little preconceptions" part, and I remembered you were just a programmer
>> desperately trying to glorify your profession. You'll notice that
>> architects don't have to constantly fight this battle, and their work is
>> similarly a mix of elegance and engineering. Similarly, design patents
>> combine artistic integrity with functional engineering, and likewise do
>> not have any problems fitting the "pitiful little preconception" that
>> constitute intellectual property laws.
>
>Then again, most architects don't have to deal with fools like you who
>think that because software developers and designers work on
>non-tangible things, the work is easy and not really a work of
>authorship. Bugger off, Minnie.
My, oh my. I guess when you have to mangle someone's position as badly
as that, it makes it pretty obvious you're just blowing smoke. I've
never claimed a single bit of what you attribute to me. Software's
qualifications as a work of authorship are dubious because it is a work
of engineering, not because it is, in your words "easy" or
"non-tangible".
>> Not everything that requires skill to create has artistic integrity.
>> You can't copyright a table, just because there's more than one way to
>> do it.
>
>Maxine here is, of course and as usual, incorrect. A design pattern on
>a table most certainly COULD be copyrighted, and a particular mechanism in
>the table could be patented.
And thus ensure, as I stated, that you cannot copyright a table, though
you can certainly copyright a design on a table.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Date: 24 Mar 2001 19:24:14 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:05:16 -0800, David Kankiewicz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>After pondering your non-retroactive argument, I've come to conclusion that
>the only way to change the copyright law would be to devalue all
>copyrighted works to as close to nothing as they can get. Thus, the
>uncompensated taking of property would not really matter because there
>would be nothing to compensate for, even if you still consider it property,
>it would be worthless.
Ah, but reducing the value of something to zero by government action is
just as much a taking of property as is taking ownership of it outright.
This is a settled principle of law.
>Thanks for clearing up that thought in my head ;), -- I already have the
>solution for making patents non problematic as well as a Trademark
>solution, better domain reference & virtual identity, I'm completely bored
>of IP issues.)
You can be bored of them all you want, but you will not rid the world of
those that exist...and many peope, including myself, will fight you over
destroying the concept of intellectual property even if it is strictly
applied to the future.
>Never say, "never happen!" No, no, no... You never know what some people
>are doing to remove the mindlessness from the situation.
If it means making people's intellectual work worthless, then you will never
succeed in that endeavor.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[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: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:32:34 -0800
FM wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >FM wrote:
> >>
> >> Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Most Universities still teach Cobol/Mainframe as the center of their CS
> >> >degrees. How useful is that? At least that what my friend told me, when
> >> >he was looking at some Universities. Most programmers I know use C/C++.
> >> >BTW the local college centers around teaching C/C++ as the intro language
> >> >for the CS degrees, instead of Cobol.
> >>
> >> What decade do you think this is? Cobol? C/C++ are plenty backwards
> >> enough (Cobol isn't really necessarily more backwards than, say, C,
> >> just more obsolete in today's computing)
> >>
> >
> >So obsolete that EVERY Fortune 500 company has a shitload of COBOL applications....
> >without which, they companies would fall into chaos within hours.
>
> What part of "more" did you not understand?
>
> Dan.
Times change the computing landscape. Unfortunately, the large
corporations have heavily invested in Cobol programs and have been
maintaining them ever since. There would have to be a low cost solution
to migrate away from Cobol code that is reliable. A company won't dare
risk their reputation or cash flow just because Cobol isn't chic anymore
with academia. As I've stated before, Cobol stinks.
> --
> What is truth? We must adopt a pragmatic definition: it is what is believed
> to be the truth. A lie that is put across therefore becomes the truth and
> may, therefore, be justified. The difficulty is to keep up lying... it is
> simpler to tell the truth and if a sufficient emergency arises, to tell one,
> big thumping lie that will then be believed.
> -- Ministry of Information, memo on the maintenance of
> British civilian morale, 1939
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More FUD from Ballmer
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 19:37:39 GMT
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> As I recall, Steve used to have hair. Man I'd worry at nights too if I
> had to defend a company like that and then have to turn around and
> wonder if his great sized crew of programmers will ever finish the next
> version of O/S on time. I suspect he has a conscience other wise he'd
> still have hair. Bill isn't bald.
>
If you ever come across the subpoenaed Microsoft internal email regarding
their destruction of DR-DOS, you will never again accuse Ballmer (or any MS
executive) of having a conscience.
--
Weevil
================================================================
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough [for breaking encryption schemes]
would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers."
-- Bill Gates, The Road Ahead (pg 265), 1995
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yet more XBox bogification...
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:39:45 -0800
Zed Mister wrote:
>
> After upgrading the drivers, I haven't gotten _ANY_ crashes in over six
> months, and this computer is pretty much always on. I haven't turned it off
> in about 3 weeks now. The problems were experienced by other people with
> the same hardware as mine (specifically a SCSI controller by a certain
> company). They reported the same exact i/o based BSOD with the older
> drivers. They also experienced disappearance of these problems with later
> versions of the drivers. There's a newsgroup for every piece of PC hardware
> out there. You can get support on these sorts of things rather easily.
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Zed Mister wrote:
> > >
> > > I personally have seen a BSOD maybe 4 times since I installed Win2K Pro.
> > > All of the crashes were due to poorly written drivers, and I haven't had
> a
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Proof?
Keeping with the thread... the X-box, when it debuts, better not give
any BSODS or the gamers will boycott the product. The other game boxes
out there don't do that that I'm aware of. The Ninetendos and
Playstation vendors will be all over Bills' case and it will help their
sales even better if the X-box randomly gives out BSODS.
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Germany Denies Microsoft Ban
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:47:30 -0800
Chad Everett wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 00:05:49 -0800, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Aaron Ginn wrote:
> >>
> >> "Jon Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > "Jon Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Wow - you know you've hit a nerve whenever someone thinks you are
> >> > someone
> >> > > > else they hate so much (I would assume). sheesh...
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > I certainly don't hate Drestin or you for that matter. You have every
> >> > > right to the opinions you hold. Unfortunately, they are largely
> >> > > uninformed ones.
> >> >
> >> > I disagree, of course. I document my claims. Ask me about something you
> >> > disbelieve and I'll document it.
> >>
> >> I disbelieve this:
> >>
> >>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=solaris+author:jan+author:johanson&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&scoring=relevance&as_drrb=quick&as_qdr=&as_mind=15&as_minm=8&as_miny=2000&as_maxd=20&as_maxm=3&as_maxy=2001&rnum=6&seld=936114375&ic=1
> >>
> >> I don't believe you have ever used Solaris, and if you have I don't
> >> believe it was "crashing all the time". Either you are lying or you
> >> are simply not competent enough to administer UNIX.
> >>
> >> Either way this post demonstrates that you have little or no
> >> experience with UNIX and are thus not qualified to commnent on it.
> >> I can't stop you from commenting on it, but I can safely ignore most
> >> of what you say about it.
> >
> >I have to agree on this one as well. I've seen this behavior before in
> >misplaced loyalty to a product. The phone systems' backbone is UNIX.
> >Never had any problems talking on the phone to anybody.
> >
>
> Try getting Microsoft technical support on the phone.
LOL!! Imagine if the phone systems' backbone was windows??
"Your call cannot be completed as the Chicago PBX has had a BSOD!"
"Please try again later as we reboot"
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CLI vs GUI
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:53:18 -0800
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 16:29:22 -0800, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >>
> >> Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> >> > I just found an NT port of rxvt. Now I can have a fully resizeable
> >> > command window, what an innovation!
> >>
> >> But it doesn't do Tektronik graphics. How lame is that? ;-)
>
> >What good is Tektronix graphics without the Tek terminal??
>
> The standard xterm emulates one. Yes, it really does, check the man
> page. They left this out of rxvt. Roberto was making a joke.
>
I know, I realize that now. I e-mailed tektronix for any graphics
programming guides that they may have and was told they don't make
terminals anymore. I've never used a program on linux that needs the
tek graphics support. I've made programs on a VAX to utilize Tek
graphics on a Tek 4200 series terminal, but I wish I could get access to
the guides again. Can't seem to find them on the net.
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 12:06:11 -0800
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> And please, how long does it take for Microsoft to respond? if it weren't
> for the constant demanding and nagging from the corporate sector for a
> solution, these problems would never get fixed. The fixation that you hold
> that Microsoft some how has the best interests of the consumer at heart is
> based on utter and pure bullshit, just as the urban-myth that Microsoft
> created the computer "revolution".
>
> Matthew Gardiner
>
> Jon Johanson wrote:
>
> >
> > "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Ouch! Yet another BIND exploiting worm that looks particularly nasty.
> >>
> >> As usual:
> >>
> >> "The only machines that are becoming infected are machines
> >> that haven't been kept up to date with security patches."
> >
> >
> > JUST like what happens to MS OS boxes without up to date patches - but
> > watch how this is a valid excuse for linux lovers but not for the rest of
> > the world...
> >
> >
> >
Right on! Remember the Home Brew Computer group?
Thats where it started.
--
V
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
