Linux-Advocacy Digest #222, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 17:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
Re: Linux disgusts me (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on
OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good)) ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("JVercherIII")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("JVercherIII")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Tim Robinson")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Tim Robinson")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Linux disgusts me ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie (Ian Pulsford)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 21:48:05 +0100
>>Couple of months ago we discussed application barrier, remember? If
>>Windows didn't have backward compatability with DOS, users of DOS
>>applications wouldn't move to it, period.
>
> And application barriers are erected by whom, Ayende? Customers?
>
>>So Windows had backward compatability, because the *users* wanted it.
>
> Otherwise, how could they maintain the application barrier that was so
> important to them, right?
One of the great things about OSS is the backwards compatibility. If a
brand new OS comes out that won't run your old binaries, just recompile.
>>But NT couldn't handle a lot of the stuff that was written to DOS, so
>>the
>>9x beast was born, had a short time of glory, and now is dying.
>
> No, 9X was "born" before NT, because 9x is just Win3.x repackaged and
> somewhat revised.
The revisions are remarkably minimal. With the addition of the Win32S
DLLs from Win311 (avaliable from MS), Win311 could run almost all 32 bit
applications and gained the nightmare of the registry [1]. The main
differences are the lack of DirectX on Win311 and the way they ruined
icons in MDI apps in Win95.
[1]Because Win311 didn't use the registry for its own initialisation,
since the registry wasn't native to 311, installing lost apps didn't
affect the stability nearly as much as Win9X.
> NT broke backward compatibility, somewhat, but it
> also therefore weakened the application barrier somewhat, so MS is now
> working on XP. This, they swear, will finally provide backward
> compatibility without requiring backward compatibility: application
> barrier without any benefit for the consumer. MS seems confused by
> their inability to generate a lot of interest among consumers. Go
> figure.
IIRC, Windows 2000 was the great product meant to unify the 9X and NT
product lines. This was _the_ product for the business and comsumer
alike. Sound familiar?
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:53:31 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > -snip-
> > >
> > > They *are* comparable products in the eyes of *developers*,
> > > though, and it's the developers who matter in this.
> > >
> > > They are platforms you build desktop applications on. And
> > > DR-DOS is a lousy one.
> > >
> > Was. Was.
>
> Yes it was. It hasn't been getting worse with time.
>
> > And why was DR-DOS so lousy to build applications on, compared
> > to the other OS's in it's market?
>
> Horrible memory model. Very weak services for
> applications. It's just like MS-DOS basically.
>
Answer the freakinig questions put to you...
And why was DR-DOS so lousy to build applications on, compared
to the other OS's in it's market?
> Windows is much better. So is OS/2. So is
> Unix. DR-DOS wins only on being cheap in terms
> of memory and CPU needed.
>
> [snip]
> > > A wee bug, fixed by release. Not much of a hassle.
> >
> > As you have been told before, with names of the executives making the
> > quotes, the purpose of the AARD code was to discourage people from using
> > DR-DOS. The code that brought up the error messages was turned off in
> > the release version, but the message generation code was still there.
>
> Do you really want to have this argument again? You
> positition *still* makes no sense, and you are still being
> dishonest about those quotes.
>
Listen you son of bitch, you'd better have your facts straight before
you accuse me of lying. I will give you the quotes and references AGAIN.
Brad Silverberg:"What the guy is upposed to do is feel uncomfortable and
when he has bugs, suspect the problem is DR-DOS and then go out and buy
MS-DOS or decide not to take the risk for the other machines he has to
buy for in the office."
David Cole :"It's pretty clear we need to make sure Windows 3.1 only
runs on top of MS-DOS or an OEM version of it."
The Microsoft File. pages 88-89, quoting M$ internal memos.
> [snip]
> > > You mean a server OS. They were running a reasonably good
> > > desktop OS in 1991, with Windows 3. Macintosh were
> > > doing so long before, too.
> >
> > DOS/Windows 3.1 sucked... and suked worse than Windows does now.
>
> As a desktop app platform, it was certainly flawed, but still
> way better than Unix.
>
Why are you comparing UNIX to DOS, DR-DOS and Windows of that time?
> > > I'm serious. DOS/Windows 3 isn't a great tool, but for
> > > desktop apps it was better than Unix is now.
> >
> > Defend your statement. How was 3.1 then, better than Unix now?
>
> It offered the services desktop apps needed- I've
> enumerated some of them for you before.
>
I have no problem printing. What problems do you have printing?
> It didn't offer the services Unix does, but then
> desktop apps don't usually need those.
>
> [snip]
> > > > Windows, depending on your concept of 'better'. DOS was simpler and
> > > > less confusing, which I believe is what "better" is supposed to mean
> to
> > > > the common user.
> > >
> > > I think you'll find that very few common users shared that
> > > view at the time.
> >
> > What "time" are you talking about now?
>
> Early nineties, really.
>
> Mind you, it is still true now. But most users
> don't know enough about DOS to have an
> opinion.
>
Really. Just how smug can you get?
> [snip]
> > > It's a *server* OS; it does lots of fine things, but they aren't
> > > the right things for desktop apps.
> >
> > Really? I have an integrated suite (Applixware) I can play music, watch
> > movies, surf the Net. Whats missing?
>
> Games. :D
>
Games. Sheesh. buy a Nintendo.
> But really, it's a question of quality. Windows apps
> are *better* in the eyes of practically everyone, and
> they are so because Windows provides the tools to
> make them so.
>
And what is wrong with Applixware, the GIMP, xmms, GQView, etc.
> [snip]
> > > For several years there was quite the battle royale between
> > > Microsoft and the old DOS vendors- Lotus 1-2-3 vs Excel,
> > > Wordperfect vs Word. Both sides just kept troweling on
> > > the features.
> >
> > And Microsft kept pushng those forced bundling licenses.
>
> Microsoft offered bundled software, yes, but so did everyone
> else. Lotus and Wordperfect were not so dumb as to miss out
> on *that*.
>
> [snip]
What other OS vendor participated in forced bundling ?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 19:52:06 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> I'm a programmer, C/C++ mainly, but also a couple of others, as well.
> I am learning COM at the moment, if this is of any interest to anyone.
> So I'll admit that I don't know much about the way it works.
Me neither. I try to read about COM stuff when my monthly copy of
MSDN Journal (formerly Microsoft Systems Journal) arrives, but the
stuff is absolutely greek to me, and I understand little of it.
I fear its learning curve. I also worry about having to embed
special non-C notations in my C code.
> Here is a good article about the difference between objects & components.
> http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_28.htm
>
> BTW, the really good thing in COM is that nearly everything in Windows is a
> COM object.
Ah, that explains the frequent annoying delays in response I must
endure on my Win 2000 workstation at work!
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 21:57:17 +0200
"Salvador Peralta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d1hcb$csc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mikkel Elmholdt quoth:
>
> ...
> > Because I don't see much Linux advocacy here, that's why. Most
> > posters here seem to believe that bashing Microsoft is equivalent to
> > advocating Linux.
>
> ...
> > But still not being totally converted, I go to a seemingly Linux
> > advocacy group to find some compelling arguments for using Linux.
> > And what do I find? A load of
> > drivel, outright BS, and mindnumbing MS bashing! That frankly
> > irritates me. You are convincing anyone new with this party line.
> ...
>
> The fact that you only bother to respond to the "MS bashing" style
> posts casts doubt ( in my mind ) regarding your claim about coming
> here to "find compelling arguments for using linux".
Hi Salvador
You should not be so paranoid. I can see that some trolls in here say things
they probably don't mean in order to provoke and irritate, for some purpose
of their own. I say things the way I see it. It may not fall in everyone's
taste but that cannot be helped.
> If there were a grain of truth to your statement, you would not waste
> your time complaining about the juvenile posting habits of some of
> the people here, but would instead focus on the posts where there is
> some real advocacy going on. Or you would simply start your own
> threads where you can ask for people to respond with the kind of
> answers you are looking for.
Frankly I waded in the front door less than 48 hours ago. And as described
before, I did not find any real advocacy going on. Some flaming was to be
expected, but I was surprised of the level. It seemed to me that the whole
group was dedicated to this kind of posting. Can you honestly say that
things are different? Is there actually any *real* advocacy in here? Or is
this just one big flamewar?
> But that isn't what you do, is it, Mikkel? What you do is get
> yourself involved in a large portion of the Anti-MS comments and
> hunker down into a nice little flamewar. That's basically ALL you've
> been doing.
Not exactly true. Besides putting this thread up, I offered my 2 cents in a
thread concerned about how the GPL could be defended in courts. You may not
think much of the intellectual content of my post (my point was that a
company really bent on misusing GPL'ed software stood a good chance of
getting away with it), but at least you cannot call it a flame or a troll.
There was of course the small matter of me flaming Terry Porter on a post he
put up regarding Windows ease of installation (or lack of it), but that post
was so stupid that it deserved an appropriate answer.
Actually I had also decided to respond to your excellent reply to my taunt
(actually one of the only *real* Linux advocacy I have seen in my brief stay
here) but I got so disgusted/occupied by all the other BS replies, that I
sort of forgot. Sorry about that. I guess that by now you are not interested
in my thoughts about anything?
> I've got no problem with that. Do as you like. But please don't do
> it under the guise of trying to satisy a need for anything other than
> conflict and flames.
>
> It's just too transparent.
I think that you have been flamed so many times that you are starting to see
MS-trolls under your bed :-)
(no offense meant - but like a lot of other people here you seem to be
pretty sensitive)
Mikkel
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 19:57:19 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> John Smith wrote:
>
> > WTF ? Illegible non anti-aliased fonts that require a magnifying glass to
> > read ? WTF ?
>
> Anti-aliased fonts are available for Linux. As well as 100dpi fonts. Yet
> distros such as SuSE 7.1 and Mandrake 7.2 don't offer these features. I
> can't help wondering why, if it's an obvious feature that is going to be
> missed.
Anti-aliased fonts affect the performance of a computer. I finally
disabled them on my NT laptop, because it made screen updates in
one of my programmer's editors noticeably slower.
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech
on OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good))
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 22:10:57 +0200
"Ian Pulsford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> > The Internet, for example, was full of sites producing content for free,
> > in the hope that somehow they?d generate revenue from sources that never
> > materialized, whether it was advertising, subscriptions, or a wing and a
> > prayer. As we?ve learned - or really re-learned - one can?t build a
> > business or our economic future on that type of flimsy foundation.
> > ---
>
> Back to reality now the hype has died down, but what do webzine
> dot.bombs have to do with OSS?
Maybe what is meant is not OSS as such but more companies trying to make
some commercial business out of OSS. One good example here would certainly
be Eazel, who as I understand it had some flimsy plans for generating
revenue in the future (charging users small fees over the Internet whenever
they used the software, or something akin to this). The commonality between
this and the dot.com would be that they are trying to generate revenue
through indirect means, while providing the main product for free.
<snip>
Mikkel
------------------------------
From: "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:00:54 GMT
I understand the difference between objects and components... I think I just
wasn't really clear before. Anyway I agree the reason COM is really cool is
that everything supports it... (As I said a good result of Microsoft's size
and power.) Their development tools make it very easy, too. (VB for example
implements the com interface automatically when you build a dll as well as
registering it, etc, and building a type-library into the component. Not
much work for you to do except write the code for the component.)
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d1ktd$ee5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm a programmer, C/C++ mainly, but also a couple of others, as well.
> I am learning COM at the moment, if this is of any interest to anyone.
> So I'll admit that I don't know much about the way it works.
> Here is a good article about the difference between objects & components.
> http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_28.htm
>
> BTW, the really good thing in COM is that nearly everything in Windows is
a
> COM object.
>
> "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:l1YI6.416$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > BTW if you want to read about the type of stuff that makes COM possible
do
> > some reading on IDL. (Interface Definition Language)... And maybe on C++
> and
> > OOP if you are not a programmer...
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9d1gjt$93l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:AbXI6.364$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > COM was a good idea, granted. MTS is a nice application, I'll grant
> that
> > > > too. But for the most part, Microsoft copy's other people's ideas.
COM
> > in
> > > > itself isn't overly original anyway, just an extensive of the object
> > > > oriented programming concept. It simply pairs a specific interface
> with
> > an
> > > > object so that as long as that interface is known the object can be
> > > > accessed. Again, the underlying ideas behind COM that allow it to
work
> > > were
> > > > developed by others. It is a good idea but not necessary originated
by
> > > > Microsoft. A good implementation of other people's ideas, once
> again...
> > > This
> > > > is another example of copy and extend business practice, which is
> > > > Microsoft's main strategy. (In other words rather than come up with
> > > > specifically new technology expand and improve upon existing
> > technology.)
> > >
> > > COM is not an extention of OOP, they can be easily confused, but there
> is
> > a
> > > difference between writing compotent oriented programming and OOP.
> > > ObjectWatch had a good article several months ago, I would suggest you
> > would
> > > look it up.
> > > And if it's so simple, how come no one came with the idea before?
> > > MTS was what EJB is today.
> > >
> > > "They never have come up with an original idea." -- I just picked up
> > several
> > > subjects where they did. I'm sure that there are more.
> > >
> > > BTW, ObjectWatch worth a good reading anyway.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:15:16 GMT
I just read that article and you're right it is pretty good. It also made a
point about how easily (and I found myself doing this reading back) the two
terms can get confused if you are not very specific about what you mean...
The points about object oriented programming vs component programming were
good too. (The point about not dealing properly with state is very true.
Have to be very careful about that... At least in my limited experience with
vb and mts.)
I guess the main reason I was saying that COM was OOP was not how components
were implemented or where, but rather that an interface was being used and
generally that's an element of OOP. (At least the way VB builds your ActiveX
DLL's for you.) (Or some would argue that anyway. But as I was stating in
another thread that is a subject of debate...) In the future I will
endeavour to speak more clearly.
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d1ktd$ee5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm a programmer, C/C++ mainly, but also a couple of others, as well.
> I am learning COM at the moment, if this is of any interest to anyone.
> So I'll admit that I don't know much about the way it works.
> Here is a good article about the difference between objects & components.
> http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_28.htm
>
> BTW, the really good thing in COM is that nearly everything in Windows is
a
> COM object.
>
> "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:l1YI6.416$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > BTW if you want to read about the type of stuff that makes COM possible
do
> > some reading on IDL. (Interface Definition Language)... And maybe on C++
> and
> > OOP if you are not a programmer...
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9d1gjt$93l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:AbXI6.364$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > COM was a good idea, granted. MTS is a nice application, I'll grant
> that
> > > > too. But for the most part, Microsoft copy's other people's ideas.
COM
> > in
> > > > itself isn't overly original anyway, just an extensive of the object
> > > > oriented programming concept. It simply pairs a specific interface
> with
> > an
> > > > object so that as long as that interface is known the object can be
> > > > accessed. Again, the underlying ideas behind COM that allow it to
work
> > > were
> > > > developed by others. It is a good idea but not necessary originated
by
> > > > Microsoft. A good implementation of other people's ideas, once
> again...
> > > This
> > > > is another example of copy and extend business practice, which is
> > > > Microsoft's main strategy. (In other words rather than come up with
> > > > specifically new technology expand and improve upon existing
> > technology.)
> > >
> > > COM is not an extention of OOP, they can be easily confused, but there
> is
> > a
> > > difference between writing compotent oriented programming and OOP.
> > > ObjectWatch had a good article several months ago, I would suggest you
> > would
> > > look it up.
> > > And if it's so simple, how come no one came with the idea before?
> > > MTS was what EJB is today.
> > >
> > > "They never have come up with an original idea." -- I just picked up
> > several
> > > subjects where they did. I'm sure that there are more.
> > >
> > > BTW, ObjectWatch worth a good reading anyway.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Tim Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 21:24:54 +0100
"JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9UXI6.404$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> No it is an extension - it uses OOP. I write in Visual C++, Java (a
little),
> and VB... I know what I'm talking about... The basic concept is that you
are
> using a standardized interface in all your components. (You are basically
> using certain standardized methods/properties in your classes as defined
by
> them. Part of which - their method definitions - allows the com component
to
> give information to the calling program about the rest of it's abilities -
> methods, properties, etc and make them available to the program. )
You have just described ActiveX, which uses COM. COM does not know about
"properties" or "method definitions" (you mean type libraries?). COM only
requires that a class implements IUnknown, and all that that entails.
--
Tim Robinson
http://www.gaat.freeserve.co.uk/
Listening to: Climbatize [Prodigy]
------------------------------
From: "Tim Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 21:26:12 +0100
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d1ktd$ee5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> BTW, the really good thing in COM is that nearly everything in Windows is
a
> COM object.
Er... except any API designed before 1992...? And most of the ones designed
since...?
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 16:28:34 +0000
In article <ZWVH6.1133$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "pookoopookoo"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hehe, I AM canadian.
>
> I just don't like to run performance intensive software under emulation,
> which is how Corel has managed to put CorelDraw on Linux.
>
But Wine is not an emulator. Currently, most Wine binaries are compiled
for i386 and many times with debug enabled. That's why it's slow.
Recompile for i686 and turn off debug and it is quite fast.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:35:43 GMT
So then you Linonuts should put pictures of a Bourne Shell # prompt on
the back of the distribution boxes and tell the prospective buyer how
great it is instead of all of these pretty pictures that don't end up
looking anything like what is displayed on the monitor when and if the
buyer is actually able to install Linux.
flatfish
On 5 May 2001 19:37:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> On Sat, 5 May 2001 09:04:22 +0000 (UTC), John Smith
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >I installed Redhat 7.1 using the kde desktop.
>>> >
>>>
>>> smart move.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Microsoft should take pity on you and offer free internships so that you
>> can
>>> >learn how to do things right the first time.
>>> >
>>>
>>> The entire world knows that any Microsoft x.0 release is buggy crapware.
>>> How is Microsoft going to teach anyone to do something right the first
>> time?
>
>> As if Linux is any better? KDE 2.0 was pretty unstable, and I was told by a
>> KDE developer that 2.1 was far and above more stable.
>
>For the last time funkybreath, KDE is not linux. Also, KDE was just as unstable
>under solaris, freebsd, aix, hp/ux, and anything else anyone ever built it under.
>
>The problem here is with KDE, not with linux.
>
>
>
>
>-----.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 22:36:40 +0100
>> open to peer review then it just will not be accepted. Security through
>> obscurity just doesn't cut it at any time.
>
> What's crap is your understanding.
What's crap is your knowledge. Security through obscruity has simply
failed time and time again, take DeCSS for example. It just plain doesn't
work.
<snip>
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:39:10 GMT
On Sat, 05 May 2001 19:33:13 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> And as for my real name, you are correct. IMHO only an idiot would
>> use her real name in a advocacy group.
>
>That makes me an idiot then.
>
>Why not use your real name? What are you afraid of?
I have very strong opinions and have always tended to be that way
whether it is politics or operating systems or what ever. That doesn't
mean that my opinions can't change over time. Why commit myself to
something that might change in the future?
I don't judge others but I feel it is foolish to use ones own name and
I feel that people who ignore the content of a message and focus on
that fact are as equally foolish as the grammer/spelling police.
Read the message, agree/disagree/debate.
flatfish
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 06:41:51 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Ian Pulsford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Craig Kelley wrote:
> > >
> > > Many (all?) TCP/IP stacks were developed to be BSD-compliant. The
> > > internet wasn't developed on UNIX, but UNIX made it what it is today
> > > (you're splitting hairs). Any way you look at it, Microsoft would
> > > have done everything *worse* than it is now (see SMB, ntrpc, ActiveX
> > > -- all communication technologies specifically designed to make people
> > > dependent on Windows).
> > >
> >
> > Doesn't matter M$ wasn't in the networking game at that stage anyway and
> > now it lags with ipv6 implementation too. Recent Unixes have it built
> > in, Windows 2000 and NT have 'developer' add-ons. That'll be fun, as
> > the internet migrates to ipv6, watching M$ catch up.
>
> As the internet migrates to ipv6? You haven't any idea how long that is
> going to take, do you? It would not surprise me if in 10 years, the
> internet were still primarily ipv4. You're only going to see ipv6 adoption
> in local private wide area networks for the foreseeable future.
We're predicted to run out of IP addresses in 7+-3yrs, the 6bone is
already in place for testing, it may be sooner than you think.
IanP
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 22:40:45 +0100
> When you need general cryptography for ordinary people to communicate
> with other ordinary people, you are correct. If I'm sending sensitive
> data to a single person, both of us in the same organization with heavy
> security on the encoding and decoding software, then it is irrelevant.
If someone is capable of intercepting the message, then they're probably
capable of getting the crypto code. Then you need a large keyspace and a
good algorithm to protect you. Without it you won't stay secret for very
long.
Besides, the test of reality has shown that good, open algorithms with
long keys are much harder to crack than poor, secret algorithoms such as
CSS.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
