Linux-Advocacy Digest #174, Volume #33 Thu, 29 Mar 01 04:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Communism (GreyCloud)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Paul 'Z' Ewande®")
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor (GreyCloud)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better (Nick
Condon)
Re: First Cross platform (w32 and Linux) virus ("green")
Re: Microsoft uses Linux (GreyCloud)
Re: First Cross platform (w32 and Linux) virus ("green")
Re: Communism ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is (Jeffrey
Siegal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:09:33 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Barry Manilow wrote:
> >
> > Craig Kelley wrote:
> > >
> > > T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Said Craig Kelley in alt.destroy.microsoft on 28 Mar 2001 08:22:12
> > > > >Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > [...]
> > > > >Have you ever spoken with a Cuban? I speak fluent spanish and I have
> > > > >spoken with *many* and they all pretty much:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Love Cuba
> > > > >
> > > > > and
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Despise the government
> >
> > Ah but they love Castro.
>
> Yeah...that's why they risk drowning to get off his island.
>
> > That is the part of the equation that u missed.
>
> Can you get me some of whatever you're smoking...I could make
> a mint off it.
>
LOL! I think they call it Havana Gold!
> > >
> > > > >Why do you think they kill themselves to come *here*?
> >
> > They want to get rich. They are impatient. The quota for that year
> > has filled up. They do not want to go anywhere else in the world.
> > Every free adult in Cuba is free to leave the country but u must wait
> > 6 months. A lot of Cubans want to go to the US but the quota fills up
> > real quick. Those who do not make the cut hop on rafts.
> > > >
> > > > Nor does it in Cuba, only they don't have PlayStations. N
> > >
> > > You're the one that said they didn't have PlayStations. That counts
> > > as a harm in my book.
> >
> > You would be stunned how many people down there have things like that.
> > --
> > Bob
> > Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
> > today!
> > Why do you think you are being flamed?
> > [ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
> > [ ] You started an off-topic thread
> > [ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
> > [ ] People don't like your tone of voice
> > [ ] Other (describe)
> > [ ] None of the above
>
> --
> 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.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande®" <[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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:16:17 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >What I mean is that Win9x is always are always ridiculed, but they really
> >aren't *that* bad.
>
> In comparison to....?
The other OSes which are in his segment. Read, those that regular people use
to do their mundane tasks, not to run webservers or datacenters.
> >If one has to give credit to Business/Highend Winstone
> >scores, which are a multitasking mix of "business" apps on one side
> >"high-end" on the other side, on the same boxes, you have a 10 to 30%
> >advantage to NT/2K compared to Win9x.
>
> Remarkably pathetic, as I suggested, considering how bad WinDOS does in
> this department.
>
> >Compare the Win9x scores
> >http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1051&p=4
> >with the WinNT ones:
> >http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1051&p=7
> >
> >But, do you believe, since it was the original point of this that floppy
> >formatting isn't a big deal, even in Win9x and that it was dependant on
the
> >hardware ?
>
> Everything is dependant on everything else: it is a single computer,
> regardless of how many real or abstract components it may have. The OS
> is proprietary, and behaves non-deterministically, and you want me to
> simply *assume* that some undefined and vague "hardware" dependency,
Why not ? You want me to assume "Remarkably pathetic, as I suggested,
considering how bad WinDOS does in this department." without offering no
back up whatsoever. <shrug>
> rather than MS's crappy design which allows such putative "hardware"
> dependencies to exist, is at fault?
>
> Nope, sorry, can't blame hardware. Not unless you can point to
I can't. Watch me: I've seen different behaviours on various systems with
different versions of
> *specific* hardware. By name and model number.
The irony meter just pegged. I find you quite demanding for someone who post
things like :
"And having switched back now from NT to 9x again, I can confirm that NT's
multi-tasking actually is almost as crappy as WinDOS'" without offering no
back up *whatsoever* as to how and in comparison to what NT's multitasking
is crappy. Before looking at the straw in my eye, try to remove the beam in
yours. <roll eyes>.
> --
> T. Max Devlin
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a
tosser, and lies about free software)
Date: 29 Mar 2001 07:17:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >>I'm talking about the copy you're
>> >>using. So it is my understanding that the Windows 2000 TCP/IP stack is
>> >>based on the BSD TCP/IP code. If some grave bug surfaces in that part of
>> >>the code and I would use W2K, I'm still at the mercy of Microsoft even
>> >>if the original source code is out in the open.
>> >You'd be just as at their mercy
>> >if it were a reimplementation, and it would have more bugs.
>> The first part is correct but irrelevant, the second part is an
>> emotional statement without merit.
>
>No, the second part is a historical fact.
Tell me, where can I get a copy op W2K with a tcp stack that is not
based on BSD code so I can compare them too?
>>The fact of the matter remains that
>> the bug is part of the code that was free software once, not part of the
>> "value added" code. So even though other versions of the code can be
>> patched, this one cannot, at least not by me, the user.
>
>Yet, also historically, closed-source vendors using the bsd stack
>have not only fixed bugs before selling their product so their
>users don't have to deal with them, but they have contributed the
>fixes back to the open source maintainers.
How is that relevant to my point?
>Please name another code license that prohibits distribution along with
>any other code which the recipient may legally use if you want to
>support the claim that the GPL is not strange and unusual.
Answered below.
>> >any other license in the world, if I can get permission to distribute
>code
>> >under that license, I am allowed to distribute it with whatever else I
>> >want.
>>
>> Either you are talking about other licenses for "free software" which
>> would have to be correctly defined, or I can name quite a few counter
>> examples, or you have various meanings for "distribute it with".
>What counter examples?
I am not allowed to distribute Netscape communicator with a modified
libc that would allow me to reverse engineer it. Read section 2b of
'Netscape Everywhere Standard Browser Distribution Program Terms and
Conditions ("Agreement")'
>> Tell me, am I *legally* allowed to distribute BSDLed code without
>> retaining the non-liability clause in the last paragraph of the BSD
>> license as stated in points 1 and 2 of that same license? If not, is
>> that a restriction wrt the distribution of the software?
>>
>> If you did not answer "No, Yes" respectively, I see no reason to
>> continue the debate because, lets say, our mindset is too far apart.
>
>If you answer 'yes' to the second part, can you support it with an
>example of how you have been restricted from distributing the
>software in question?
I have never had the need to violate the BSDL. But let's suppose that
you have released some piece of software BSD licensed. Now if I would
replace your license file with a readme stating "Hi, this software is
copyrighted by some other dewd but he released it as free software, so
use and distribute to your hearts content", thus not retaining your
non-liability clause, would I or would I not violate your BSD license?
>> If you say that such restriction is within the scope of copyright law, I
>> hereby challenge you to show me the section of US Code Title 17 where
>> such is written.
>Licenses and copyright law are opposites. The point of the license is
>that it gives you rights that copyright law would otherwise remove.
License *restrictions* and copyright law are not opposites.
>> If you say that such restriction is reasonable and has
>> nothing to do with the code, I'd agree wholeheartly with you, but I
>> would conclude that since you allow legal distribution restrictions on
>> free code, that you quantify the allowable restrictions for the code to
>> be called free and such quantification is subjective. My subjective
>> measures might differ from yours.
>
>Code distribution isn't a subjective matter. Give examples of how
>the BSDL has prevented a user from obtaining a working program.
Where have I ever stated that it is? BTW, I view BDSLed software as
free. Can *you* give examples of how the GPL has ever prevented a user
from using a program the way he pleases?
>> I don't recall ever to quantify the "freeness" of the software. I don't
>> think you can objectively compare the GPL and BSDL in their being either
>> more or less free.
>Of course you can. Count the real examples where the respective licenses
>have prevented actual programs from being distributed and used.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rehashed topic. You can freely distribute BSDLed software but not freely
use every instantiation of the software. You can freely use every
instantiation of GPLed software but not freely distribute it.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
In 1968 it took the computing power of 2 C-64's to fly a rocket
to the moon. Now, in 1998 it takes the Power of a Pentium 200 to
run Microsoft Windows 98. Something must have gone wrong.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:17:00 -0800
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 26 Mar 2001 15:39:10
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > >> >Win9x sucks, though, we've already established that. That's why MS
> is
> > > > > >> >ditching it and going with WinXP which is based on the NT/2K kernel.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Yes, but we've already established that NT, 2K, and XP all suck, too.
> > > > > >> That's the problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Just refering to win9x series... I claim here as I have earlier that I
> > > > > >don't know anything about NT. I leave that to others. But,
> considering
> > > > > >MS track record of reliability, their credibility is in grave doubts
> > > > > >here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, that's a very wise position to take, obviously. NT is, indeed,
> > > > > much more stable as an OS than DOS, and 2K does improve on that, as
> > > > > well. But I assure you the only reason anyone would consider NT or 2K
> > > > > "reliable" is if they've never seriously used anything *but* WinDOS.
> > > > > You know how horrid that is. So its no surprise, hmm, that NT or 2K is
> > > > > 'the bee's knees' for the Windroid, given the comparison.
> > > > >
> > > > > I said before that NT is more stable *as an OS*, because the point is,
> > > > > as a *platform*, its every bit as unreliable as any other Windows. And
> > > > > this, of course, is where the bad design of Windows really shines. NT,
> > > > > of course (including W2K and XP) doesn't fall over every time an
> > > > > application coughs up a lung, like WinDOS does. But it does crash,
> > > > > bomb, freeze, lock, wedge, glitch, or otherwise require a
> > > > > re-initialization (to arbitrary extent) on a routine basis.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > T. Max Devlin
> > > > > *** The best way to convince another is
> > > > > to state your case moderately and
> > > > > accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
> > > >
> > > > Thats what I thought. I had an older distro on my box but an app in X
> > > > froze up, so I alt-F1 to get a virtual terminal, logged in as root, did
> > > > a ps -ax and found the ID of that process and killed it. Logged out of
> > > > root, did an alt-F(?) (forgot) and back in to my original X gui and
> > > > everything was back again. Its one of the best features I've found and
> > > > not in any other O/S that I know of.
> > >
> > > Of course, 99% of the time when X freezes, it's usually a complete system
> > > freeze and ALT+F1 doesn't do anything.
> > >
> > > -c
> >
> > How could a WinDrool know?
>
> Are you completely devoid of intellectual thought?
>
> Apparently so.
>
> *PL0NK*
> -c
Well, you don't say!
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
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: 29 Mar 2001 08:38:34 GMT
Jay Maynard wrote:
>On 28 Mar 2001 09:43:05 GMT, Nick Condon
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Jay Maynard wrote:
>>>If it means making people's intellectual work worthless, then you will
>>>never succeed in that endeavor.
>>What a mercenary mindset you have.
>>zero cost != worthless
>
>However, it takes money to keep food in the pantry and the rent paid and
>Lexus Financial Services from coming to repossess my car. None of those
>can be done without it. If I can't make money from doing software, then
>I'll have to do something else that does bring in real dollars.
I've worked in the computer industry my whole career. I've *never* been
paid a penny of royalties on the work I've done; I've never even met anyone
who has been paid that way. I get paid by the hour, just like everyone else
who works in service industry.
>*NOTHING* is truly zero cost. Trying, as you advocate, to distort the
>equation by removing any possibility of meaningful monetary compensation
>for someone's intellectual work will simply drive people out of fields
>to which that applies, thus a) impoverishing large numbers of people,
>and b) drastically reducing the amount of intellectual work being done.
Rubbish. You are labouring under a number of flawed assumptions. You think
that software needs to have a resale value, or companies won't pay for it
to be written. I work in the industry; you want to work in the industry.
Let me tell you how it works in the real world. 95% of all software is
developed in house and never offered for sale, so all that work will still
get done even if it can't be copyrighted. Because it's value is *use* value
and the developers that wrote it will still get paid; it'll be generous
hourly rate rather than royalties.
Secondly, software that is in use gradually falls out of step with real
world conditions, so it needs to be maintained. Software maintenance, that
is, making changes to software that already exists, makes up the vast
majority of what real programmers do. Maintenance will still need to be
done, those developers will still get paid.
You think that people are mainly motivated by money. Not even the
economists believe that anymore. You think that without royalty payments,
people won't write software. The four most critical pieces of
infrastructure that make the Internet work are The four most critical
pieces of infrastructure that make the Internet work are BIND [Berkeley
Internet Name Daemon], Perl, Sendmail, and Apache. Everyone of them is free
software.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: First Cross platform (w32 and Linux) virus
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:42:10 +1000
>
> Possible, there are applications that read ext2 from 9x (& NT if you are
> admin, or have found the drivers (anyone can tell me where I can find ext2
> drivers for 2000/XP?) )
> Trying to implement that in assembly is something that I would like to
> avoid, thank you very much.
if you were asking for a link...
http://uranus.it.swin.edu.au/~jn/linux/
else you may have been meening everbody knows where one is.
green.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft uses Linux
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:37:05 -0800
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> Maybe they were trying to woo quality programmers from the Linux community
> to the Windows Development Community (I know, its a bit of an oxymoron),
> such as your self.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
>
They know me from digging into DECs training files. In earlier part of
microsofts' history they used a lot of DEC VAXes. Somehow, when I was
doing the origination of Federal contracts to purchase equipment, MS got
a hold of my name.
------------------------------
From: "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: First Cross platform (w32 and Linux) virus
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:43:51 +1000
>
> Nope. Thankfully, this virus isn't that intelligent. It's technically
> /possible/ to create a virus that can infect Linux partitions, but it
would
> require the size overhead of putting an entire self-contained ext2
> filesystem driver into the virus code, which is impractical.
or just enough so it can locate a single file like sh or login and infect
it.
crude but from here it could infect other files.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 03:43:35 -0500
Barry Manilow wrote:
>
> GreyCloud wrote:
>
> > Communism in the economic sense is a total failure. It isn't bigotry
> > when a tin-pot dictator puts up a nuclear missile system designed to
> > annihilate you. Its defense.
>
> Castro put up those missles in self-defense.
You keep telling yourself that, traitor.
> I do not blame him one
> bit and am glad he did it. The US had been sponsoring terrorism and
> guerilla war in Cuba for a long time.
...against an illegitimate dictator.
> At the time, Operation Mongoose
> was on the books, the culmination of which was to be a US invasion of
> Cuba. Castro knew we were going to invade so he requested missles to
> defend himself from the US. Good for him! The US was the aggressor;
> Cuba was the defender!
He's gonna use nukes against an invasion force on his own beaches,
so that the fallout can blow all over the island, making the entire
place uninhabitable....
Yeah...right...you're a loony you are.
Remember...several MILLION Americans took an oath to defend the Constitution
from all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC.
So...when we line you up against the wall....don't forget
I TOLD YOU SO.
Pleasant dreams...
Remember that prick Caucesceau and his greeedy-bitch wife...
That's what happens to communists.
>
> Little boys will only forget the mistakes
> > of their grandfathers and repeat those mistakes.
> > I won't forget! One-dimensional thinking does not take place in the
> > analysis of the Cuban mess. Thats why Cuba still exists as it is. It
> > really wouldn't be all that difficult to just go down south about 90
> > miles and put an end to it.
>
> Gee, why don't we do it then? We keep talking about but we never do
> it. We would end up with a guerilla war without end, that is why.
> >
> Why the commie came in here to push his views of communism in
> > a linux advocacy group I'll never know.
>
> Thought I would liven things up a bit. :) This group is getting
> boring.
> --
> Bob
> Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
> today!
> Why do you think you are being flamed?
> [ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
> [ ] You started an off-topic thread
> [ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
> [ ] People don't like your tone of voice
> [ ] Other (describe)
> [ ] None of the above
--
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: Jeffrey Siegal <[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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 01:07:23 -0800
Nick Condon wrote:
> The four most critical
> pieces of infrastructure that make the Internet work are BIND [Berkeley
> Internet Name Daemon], Perl, Sendmail, and Apache. Everyone of them is free
> software.
You overstate your case here. Browsers and mail clients are also
infrastructure critical to the Internet (indeed, without browsers and
mail clients, Apache and Sendmail are useless), and virtually none of
them, as measured by usage, are free software.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
