Linux-Advocacy Digest #179, Volume #33 Thu, 29 Mar 01 13:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Some OS security thoughts ("Mike")
Re: Communism (redc1c4)
Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (Chad Everett)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? ("Andy Walker")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:41:05 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> More fodder for those who like to point out you've obviously never been
>> >> in combat. Nor have I, but I'm bright enough to know that, were I one
>> >> of those blobs, I'd be the shadowiest, most camouflaged fucker in a
>> >> hundred miles, if at all possible. Believe me, its for camouflage.
>> >
>> >Those of us who've actually done it know otherwise.
>>
>> Look, I don't know what kind of psycho rush it might give you to paint
>> your face. But your presumption at authority is very disturbing. Don't
>> forget about how badly you've already been spanked by the real soldiers.
>
>As if a year in a war doesn't count....
For certain definitions of "in a war", no, it doesn't.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 29 Mar 2001 16:43:48 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 01:03:09 +1000, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Gunner © wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:59:15 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> Cuba has dedicated itself to the principle that, within its means, it
>> >> will try not to kill any human beings due to lack of food, shelter,
>> >> medical care, poor sanitation, etc.
>>
>> But they got real good at shooting down Cessnas......
>
>I wonder what Cuba would be like if Batista and the Mafia still ruled.
Not to mention that the Cessna was invading their airspace.
The US has killed more people in the mexican border than East
Germany killed at the Berlin wall, so americans should be very
careful before accusing others of defending their space too
harshly.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:44:46 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> >Communism is an extreme form of socialism, inextribly linked to
>> >totalitarianism.
>>
>> You have no more valid a right to define anything in such a manner as
>> the average street person, Aaron.
>>
>> Communism is a political system, socialism is an economic system. If we
>
>Communism encompasses both politics and economics.
So says Aaron Kulkis. Big whoop.
>> presume they are linked, then we sacrifice the definition of either, and
>> while you may be willing to descend into such a quagmire of prejudice, I
>> insist on believing that all men, even ones as stupid as you, are acting
>> rationally.
--
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
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:48:11 GMT
Said GreyCloud in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:42:52
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said GreyCloud in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:56:28
>> >[...]Eventually,
>> >capitalism will slowly topple the communist system.
>>
>> Didn't they teach any of you little boys in school that capitalism is an
>> economic system, as is socialism, while communism is a political system,
>> as is democracy? Please, no one-dimensional thinking to explain the
>> error: just admit it is an error and think harder about your opinion.
>> Just because your own carefully learned bigotries prevents you from
>> seeing the two distinctly doesn't mean you should encourage the same
>> prejudice in others.
>>
>> --
>> T. Max Devlin
>> *** The best way to convince another is
>> to state your case moderately and
>> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
>Take note: The communist system in the Soviet Union was toppled.
>Communism in the economic sense is a total failure. [...]
Apparently, you aren't listening. Communism *doesn't have* an "economic
sense", unless you're misusing the word, which generally torpedoes any
argument you might present on the matter.
--
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
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:49:12 GMT
Said GreyCloud in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:03:44
>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. 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. 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!
>
>BULLSHIT!!!
I think you hit a nerve, Bob.
--
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
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:55:54 GMT
Said Craig Kelley in alt.destroy.microsoft on 28 Mar 2001 19:45:27
>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
>>
>> Sounds like a generic definition of "patriotism" to me. I'm sure Aaron
>> Kulkis would agree. So do Cubans of your acquaintance despise the
>> government more or less than Aaron Kulkis does? And on what basis do
>> you presume this would be different, were Cuba "capitalist" instead of
>> "communist".
>
>But Cuba was claimed as a model of good communisim.
Claim, shmame. I could care less about pissing matches.
>I am merely
>debunking the assertation. There are many capitalistic countries that
>aren't perfect, including the United States; although I'd rather live
>in our less-than-perfect country than most others.
Give George W. a few years; he'll change your mind.
>> >Why do you think they kill themselves to come *here*?
>>
>> Because they believe the Coca Cola ads. Wouldn't *you*?
[...]
>> >Huh? I've lived in cities from the size of millions to a small town
>> >the size of 4000 and have never seen these people. I supported myself
>> >by working at McDonald's and managed to pay for school at the same
>> >time. I didn't manage to pay for the nicest place to live, but I had
>> >enough money to buy a PlayStation and way too many games.
>> >
>> >Death never entered the equation.
>>
>> Nor does it in Cuba, only they don't have PlayStations. Nor will you
>> ever see these people. It is in their lack that the harm is done; the
>> benefits of society accrue, according to the capitalists, only to those
>> who are already benefiting the most.
>
>You're the one that said they didn't have PlayStations. That counts
>as a harm in my book.
That counts as begging the question, in mine.
[...]
>> >Go to Miami and visit with a few refugees before you spout off again.
>>
>> You really do seem to put a lot of weight into hearsay evidence rather
>> than reason. The 'refugees' are hardly the most impartial of observers.
>
>I believe what I experience, not (generally) what people tell me.
A dicey issue, believing so much in ones own flawed *perceptions*.
>> On the political matter of Cuba, by the way, I'm entirely agnostic. I
>> just like to see more straight-forward debate, whatever the topic. I'd
>> just as soon it not be discussed on adm, but things are slow.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some OS security thoughts
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:08:15 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:08:42 GMT, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I'm not talking about running the latest script from some mass mailer,
> > I'm talking about getting a script from a coworker that I want to run.
>
> And you never want to run it more than once? That seems like an unusual
> situation to me. Usually when I get scripts from co-workers I want to
> keep them, so I have to save them anyway.
And your definition of the unusual situation is obviously the same for
everyone else, in every situation, everywhere, and only your "usual" should
be allowed.
So, you save the virus laden script, and run it from your user account
later, and it trashes your system. How did saving it make things more
secure?
It didn't change anything about the script, and it's not secure: you're just
hoping that fewer people will go through the bother of saving it and
changing the protections than would click on it to run it. It doesn't really
solve the problem, or even address it.
> Because too many people would click on it without thinking and because
> it makes it too easy to run something by accident. If you make them
> take a couple of extra steps it give them time to think about whether
> they really want to run the script. Even just making them right-click
> and select from a menu is better than nothing.
Security is more than just making things painful. Mark was right in the post
that started all this: "[a program received by email] should be run in a
protected environment." That's real security, and it removes the need for
this artificial "let's make it so damn difficult that they won't do it"
barrier.
> Anyway, Roberto Alsina told you how to make your mailer behave the way
> you want.
And I shall quote: "You can do that with any unix mailer that supports
mimetypes. You just need to grossly abuse metamail (or kde's mime-types, if
you want to do it with kmail)."
With instructions like that, who needs man pages? Now if I could only find
that GrosslyAbuseMetaMail option in the .config file...
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: redc1c4 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "delete the \".ies\""
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:08:21 GMT
Ian Davey wrote:
(snipage occurs)
"drawing and quartering" is an apt description of erron's cognitive
abilities (to use a term loosely).
they drew a picture of a brain, cut it into quarters, and gave him one
piece, which he promptly lost......... %-)
redc1c4,
to get him to shut up, or change the subject, just ask for a cite to
bolster his claim of your choice. he NEVER has one.........
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and
sly, and bear considerable watching."
Army Officers Guide
PMD
EOM
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:13:50 GMT
Said Michael Allen in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 29 Mar 2001 03:48:51
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said HIM in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:51:40 -0500;
>> >
>> >"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> Looks like MS is betting the farm on content protection. Good. The
>> >> more they bet, the more they lose. :-)
>> >
>> >MS never bet the farm on anything. And probably never will.
>>
>> Other than the monopoly, we presume you mean. Watch what happens when
>> the stock hits $30.
>>
>> >And as far as
>> >content protection goes they could care less.Why would they?
>>
>> Because Bill Gates has always dreamed of being able to charge people for
>> using intellectual property.
>
>It is not a dream, it happens every day across multiple industries. Books,
>movies, music, software, etc. etc.
BZZZZ. Sorry, only software belongs in that category, and then only
speculatively. You obviously misunderstood the concept. You pay for a
*book* or a *performance* or what have you, not any "use of intellectual
property". Only producers do that. As for software, we're not talking
about charging for "licenses to use" (which aren't, by the way, licenses
to use, but trade secret agreements pretending to be licenses to copy),
we're talking about charging for actual use.
>The owner of intellectual property has
>every right, supported by existing law on the books today, to charge people
>for the use of their property.
BZZZZ. This is, again, a misconception. The *only* right the owner of
intellectual property has is the ability to determine (and charge for
such consideration) who can *produce* his works. Copyright gives no
power whatsoever to charge for use of IP. You have been duped by the
trade secret licenses, and you are not alone.
>I've always been amazed by people (such as
>some Napster users) who don't believe the IP owner has the right to charge
>for his own property. Max, do you believe people have the right to download
>music (IP) they have not paid for without the artist's (owner's) approval?
>I'd like to know where you stand on this.
Who's "they"? I believe copyright law (and, more importantly, popular
misconceptions about copyright law) needs to be modified to become
reasonable. It may have been rational before, when it could be assumed
that distribution required production. But since the costs of these
things have dropped, and the prices haven't, there is every reason to
believe that rather than exercising any "right to profit", corporate
media owners are under the impression they have a right to profiteer.
>> He's described it clearly and directly, if
>> you've been paying attention. (Start with "The Road Ahead", if you're
>> catching up. A painful read, but with some very interesting parts.)
>> "Content protection" is just like "software piracy"; a rubric with which
>> IP use becomes IP licensing, and thus IP rental.
>>
>Regarding IP rental, it will work in any industry with any product if it is
>convienient for users and provides value.
Well, it hasn't worked in any industry ever. Customers literally won't
put up with it. And did you notice that your statement was a tautology?
"It will work if it works." Its a false statement, though, because "IP
rental" (per-use charges) doesn't provide convenience or value. It is
literally only attractive to people who think they can use it as a sub
rosa method of increasing prices by orders of magnitude while decreasing
both the convenience and the value to the customer.
>If it doesn't, it will die.
Stillborn, more commonly.
>Look
>at DIVX (per use, rental charge for DVDs) for example. It wasn't convenient
>for users, was confusing in it's implementation, didn't provide value (i.e.
>was too expensive) and thus, it died a natural death in the marketplace.
Stillborn, just like all such attempts, as I said. There's nothing
natural about such schemes; they're attempts at monopolization, not free
marketplace behavior.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:52:59 GMT
Linux Supreme
>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.
>
>
Fidel Castro uses Microsoft Windows.
------------------------------
From: "Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:07:18 -0000
Shane Phelps wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Is that you Steve/Claire/flatfish????? How's the iMac?
>
>It's nice to see a Mactroll for a change, anyway.
>They seem rare in these parts ;-)
>
>SamanthaJoy wrote:
>>
>> Wilbert Kruithof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Why does opensource exist...
>>
>> > The only thing I am asking for is an answer to above question. *What*
way
>> > is
>> > Open Source developing?
>>
>> It's pretty clear that OSX is where the UNIX community will gravitate as
>> we go forward. Even the use of the word "Darwin" was well planned by
>> Apple.
>>
>> All linux/unix code now has a stable base of hardware on which to write
>> for... Before OSX, it was a poor mixture of intel hardware so it never
>
>PA-RISC, SPARC, POWER, Alpha, VAXen, m680x0, PDP, m88k, Intel RISC.
>Yep, what a motley assortment of x86 hardware
>
>
>> took off to any large degree... Now programmers don't have to worry
>> about the hardware present or the GUI. Everything just works, which will
>> be a real boon to linux/unix developers.
>>
>> All the elements are here:
>>
>> http://dryden.biol.yorku.ca/darwin.html
>>
>> > And is there a connection between Darwins theory and the way Open
Source
>> > is developing??
>>
>> Yes, as we move from a "hobbyist" os (linux) to a more commercial
>> application (OSX) we'll see Darwin's ideas apply to the software world
>
>OS X isn't open, even though it's based on Mach/BSD (more's the pity).
>A more legitimate comparison might be Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, Irix, ...
>or even NextStep ;-)
>
>> just like it does in the hardware/software/mixture world. OSX is the
>> first large scale distrubution of UNIX so it packs the "biggest animal
>> in the land" punch... SAMI
>It isn't distributed yet :-)
>It should be interesting, though. What a pity I'm still on a 604 :-(
>Maybe a G3 or G4 daughterboard and another 64MB of RAM and....
As far as OSX goes, it's major advantage over Linux distributions will be
the ease of use. The fact that the CLI is transparent means that it won't
scare off newcomers as quickly, and, as I'll go into later, documentation
will be better.
The best thing about open source is the development of software is very
rapid. Patches and fixes are often available within 24 hours of a problem
and as a result recurring bugs are tracked down and eliminated over time and
you don't have to buy a complete new operating system to get them fixed!
The fact that open source is available means that no-one has to keep
re-inventing the wheel and developing software becomes quicker and easier,
and as it is built using very stable code less de-bugging is necessary. A
good example is Apache. Any missing facilities can be coded and added by
anyone to serve their own purpose rather than creating from scratch
something to do the task.
The biggest downsides to open source are firstly lack of clear documentation
and secondly user friendliness. The people who code software largely do it
for fun or for a specific purpose. As such people are proficient with Linux
etc, they know how to use their code and as a result, documentation and
simple usage can be sparse to say the least. In their defense, who would
want to write user manuals anyway!
In the future I see open source growing to cover the vast majority of common
software. The profits will be made by support and documentation such as now
being provided by RedHat. As software becomes more and more complex better
support will probably become a necessity in order to get the most out things
like spreadsheets and DTP packages.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
