Linux-Advocacy Digest #309, Volume #34 Tue, 8 May 01 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (GreyCloud)
Re: Why does Flatfoot feel so threatened? (Ray Chason)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Charles Lyttle)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (GreyCloud)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux and MP3s ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A Windows enthusiasts take on Mundie's speech (Matthew Gardiner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 20:25:59 -0700
Chad Everett wrote:
>
> On Mon, 07 May 2001 17:15:13 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001
> > [...]
> >>I said a "rosetta stone" *OR* some way to identify at least one character or
> >>word in the data.
> >
> >Statistically trivial.
> >
> > [...]
> >>You're assuming that someone just ran a file through zip. That's not what
> >>i'm talking about. There are many compression algorithms that you can apply
> >>without creating file information. The output of the algorithm should
> >>appear random if you don't know that it is compressed data.
> >
> >No assumptions. Regardless of what mangling you try to do to obfuscate
> >the data, the data is trivially vulnerable without strong encryption.
> >
> > [...]
> >>No, a 4 bit key simply means that the key is 4 bits. The key may not use
> >>factors at all, it might be the value that is XOR'd for example, or any of a
> >>billion other ways those 4 bits might be used to encode the data. You're
> >>making the critical error of assuming the use of a known algorithm, which is
> >>exactly my point.
> >
> >You misunderstand the analytical meaning of the term 'key', which
> >suggests prime factor-based strong encryption. Your "algorithmic
> >obfuscation" simply isn't real security, Erik. Get it?
> >
>
> Erik is making a classic mistake. His translation table AND the 4 bit
> index is "the key".
>
> You can never have a secure system if you base security on the secrecy of
> the algorithm.
>
> From "Applied Cryptography", Bruce Schneier: "All of the security [in these
> algorithms] is based in the key (or keys); none is based in the details
> of the algorithm. This means that the algorithm can be published and
> analyzed. Products using the algorithm can be mass-produced. It doesn't
> matter if an eavesdropper knows your algorithm, if she doesn't know your
> particular key, she can't read your messages".
>
> >>> Enigma was originally cracked without any knowledge of the algorithm,
> >>> and it had a key length of 26^7 IIRC.
>
> False. The crackers knew it was rotor machine, had information on its
> construction and operation, etc, etc.
>
> >>
> >>If that were the case, they wouldn't have needed to capture the enigma
> >>machines.
>
> They didn't need to capture enigma machines. Your history is a little off
> here.
>
> The Polish, and later the French and British cracked most of the enigma
> without ever having captured a single enigma machine. They actually
> built duplicates based on their amazing work in cryptography and mathematics.
> See http://insci14.ucsd.edu/~ma187s/students/enigma.html
>
> >
> >At the time, they did. That's WHY they had to capture the enigma
> >machine. They didn't have 386's with megs of RAM, remember?
> >
>
> Again, you're incorrect here. They didn't need to capture the enigma. They
> cracked enigma without ever capturing a single enigma machine.
Lets put it this way... if Eric used a 4-bit key and did everything he
says he would do, NSA would have it deciphered in less than a minute.
--
V
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Flatfoot feel so threatened?
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 03:29:01 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Sun, 06 May 2001 16:21:39 -0000, Ray Chason
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>As for bloat, take a good look at what KDE and StarOffice are headed
>towards.
Then use Enlight...oh, yeah, that's even more bloated :-) Use
Windowmaker, fvwm2, or twm. I happen to think twm is clumsy and ugly
as sin, but I would never presume to tell others that they can't use
it.
>>2) If you want to waste your money on AOL or MSN, that's your choice.
>> I'd rather have a real ISP, so that
>
>I don't, but the average pre-load comes with an ISP already built into
>the price at least for a year or so.
A quick trip to bestbuy.com revealed nothing of the kind. Not exactly
an exhaustive market survey, I'll grant. If you refer to one of those
deals where you yoke yourself to AOL for three years and get $400 off
the price of your computer, then let's do the math.
$400 amortized at 18% over three years is about $14.46/mo. IIRC the
cost of the service is about $22.95/mo. The effective price, then,
is about $8.49/mo. Not too bad, if you don't mind a three-year
obligation.
>>If Power Point is a requirement, then Power Point is what you should
>>use. If she just needs to be able to show images, then any program
>>in that class will do; in a pinch you could even use the Gimp.
>
>When a grade is at stake I prefer to use a known product instead of
>being a hero and running a Linux version in the hope that it will work
>ok on the teachers PC.
You have struck, right on the head, the reason that so many despise
Microsoft, the reason that many become Penguinistas: vendor lock.
Nothing but PowerPoint really works with PowerPoint because the
format is a trade secret.
Many Windows advocates argue that the current state of affairs, with
a set of monopolistic standards, is better than the status quo ante
where multiple incompatible products competed; and that's true as
far as it goes. But monopolistic standards are only best if you are
the monopoly. For the consumer, they are only second best.
What I advocate is not Linux per se, but open standards, open protocols,
open file formats. I can read email with Outlook, or I can use Eudora,
Pegasus, Pine, or KMail. I can read news with Outlook, or I can use
Netscape, Gravity, Agent, PAN, KNode, tin, or slrn. I can cruise the
Web with Explorer, or I can use Netscape, Konqueror, Opera, or Lynx.
I can even write my own clients.
Open standards are why we're all using PCs and not Macintoshes. Open
standards are what made the Net what it is. Even the wall socket that
powers your PC is an open standard. There is no reason but the
interests of a single large corporation that this happy state of affairs
cannot prevail for word processors, spreadsheets, databases, and such.
You noted in another post that you dislike Word. Wouldn't it be nice
if you could choose another word processor and not worry about being
compatible with the guy down the street who uses Word?
You may argue that Joe Sixpack doesn't care about open standards, and
you'd probably be right. But he should care.
>>GUIs are nice. GUIs are pretty. GUIs are easy.
>>
>>But most GUI apps can't be batched in any meaningful way.
>
>Joe user doesn't care.
But I do. Those of us who can do more with our computers shouldn't be
limited to what one corporation thinks an ill-defined "Joe User" wants.
Don't weld my hood shut just because you can't change your own spark
plugs.
>>Ah, yes, the old bandwagon argument again. "Virtually nobody" needs
>>"yet another macro assembler that can program the GB-Z80, Z80, 6502,
>>6510, and 65816 CPUs" (an actual app from that Freshmeat page),
>>therefore it shouldn't be available. Only mass-market apps peddled
>>by large corporations should be available.
>
>No. Linux has it's place and amongst the geeks and programmers is
>where it belongs. A true geek reading that Freshmeat page would have
>an orgasm over all that stuff.
I must not be a true geek, then. Most of those programs were
networking software, irrelevant to a home user with only one computer,
even if it uses Linux. I can think of a thing or three I could do
with that assembler, though. Maybe I'll check it out, and maybe
I'll port it to Windoze just for the halibut.
>As a general statement I have used many applications d/l'd from
>Freshmeat and most of the ones I have used are half done and crude
>with little or no documentation.
The neat thing about shareware and free-as-in-beer-ware is that you
can try them, and if you don't like them, you delete them and you've
lost nothing but a little time.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 03:29:12 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > In article <Ny7I6.22197$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > > > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I guess it depends on what you mean by "secure". If someone
> > > doesn't
> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > the decode algorithm, 4-bit encryption could be quite secure
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What crap. If you don't understand something don't make
> pathetic
> > > > > > > > attempts to show that you do. ANY 4-bit encryption algorithm
> could
> > > be
> > > > > > > > cracked by brute force in less time than it took you to write
> such
> > > > > > > > rubbish. The best known encryption algorithms are known and
> open
> > > to
> > > > > > > > peer review. If you invent a new encryption algorithm but
> won't
> > > make
> > > > > > > > it 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can only brute force it if you know the decode algorithm.
> You
> > > can
> > > > > > > guess, and analyze and do lots of things, but it could be things
> > > like
> > > > > XORing
> > > > > > > the data against a pets name, while rotating 3 bits and
> compressing
> > > it
> > > > > using
> > > > > > > 10 different compression algorithms. The number of possible
> > > > > combinations of
> > > > > > > decode algorithms is limitless.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > You aren't required to know the algorithm to crack encryption. You
> > > don't
> > > > > > care about the algorithm, you care about recovering the message.
> So
> > > the
> > > > > > attack has to create an algorithm that decodes the message. It
> doesn't
> > > > > > matter if the algorithm is the "correct" algorithm or not. In
> fact,
> > > > > > doing things such as you suggest often make a code easier to
> crack.
> > > When
> > > > > > you apply multiple compression algorithms, or multiple xor, the
> > > attacker
> > > > > > doesn't have to know how many times you compressed, he just has to
> > > find
> > > > > > one scheme to go from encrypted message to plain text.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ahh, but that's just it. Such a scheme typically needs to have a
> > > "rosetta
> > > > > stone" or some way to identify at least one character or word in the
> > > data.
> > > > > Suppose the encrypted data isn't plain text at all, but something
> that
> > > is
> > > > > based on a random character set chosen for the day it was encrypted?
> > > You
> > > > > need a point of reference, and without having that, you might as
> well
> > > have
> > > > > monkeys banging on keyboards.
> > > > >
> > > > No, you don't typically need a "rosetta stone". If you have such, then
> > > > you can apply a "known plain text attack". But that isn't the only
> > > > attack.
> > >
> > > I said a "rosetta stone" *OR* some way to identify at least one
> character or
> > > word in the data.
> > >
> > If the message is in a Latin or Germanic language the probability is ~1
> > that it contains the letters "A" and "O". If it is in Greek, it will
> > almost certainly contain the letters "A" and "O". But if it is in
> > Cyrillic, then one would check for the letters "A" and "O". There are
> > corresponding checks for languages such as Hebrew, Japanese ( "A" and
> > "O" in their telegraph codes), Thai, Chinese, and Korean.
> > Normally, the attacker would start not making any assumptions about
> > language, but would look for indicators of key length, and try to deduce
> > the alphabet size. After establishing some statistics, these would be
> > bounced off a program that would check for probable language. Then
> > probable words would be located, and unknown words deduced. I don't
> > recall where I saw the memo quoted, but it went something like "Does
> > anyone know of someone whose name contains the letter 'K' who went
> > somewhere last week. He may have been German or Romanian." Apparently,
> > from statistics, the mathematician had deduced the above with no
> > knowledge of the message contents or language. Today, we would have just
> > done a regex search of a data base to see if there was someone who met
> > the requirements.
>
> You're forgetting. I already offered that it would be quite possible to
> device an encoding scheme where the same sequence of characters are not
> encoded the same way twice. Thus, all your occurances of A and O would be
> different for each time they occured. Suppose I used the 4 bit key as an
> index into a completely arbitrarily chosen letter translation table.
> Example:
>
> a = 1 the first time the a is used.
> a = z the second time it is used
> a = l the third time it's used
> a = 0xfe the fourt time it's used.
>
> Now, a key with a value of 3, means that it starts at the third arbitrarily
> chosen entry. Thus, a message of "aaaa" would have be encoded to l0xfe1z.
> There is no recognizeable pattern there, and no way for you to guess at all,
> given only the data and the key with the value 3.
>
> Further, the message could be written in an imaginary language (or one known
> only to the author and recipient, such as Apache which was used during the
> WWII). That in itself is a form of encoding. You might be able to assume
> that the imaginary language uses typical human language patterns, but if the
> language were made specifically to defy all known language patterns, you are
> again lost.
>
> > > > > Typically, when trying to break encryption without knowing the
> > > algorithm,
> > > > > you either look for common algorithms, or you look for patterns that
> > > match
> > > > > known language patterns.
> > > > You look for clues. Compression algorithms for example, will add
> > > > information to the file that permits deduction of the compression
> > > > scheme. So applying (by computer) tests for compression will very
> > > > rapidly "back out" the compressions.
> > >
> > > You're assuming that someone just ran a file through zip. That's not
> what
> > > i'm talking about. There are many compression algorithms that you can
> apply
> > > without creating file information. The output of the algorithm should
> > > appear random if you don't know that it is compressed data.
> > >
> > No, I didn't assume that you just ran the file through zip. To be useful
> > for this purpose, the compression scheme has to be both reversible and
> > lossless. Otherwise you would never be able to decode the uncompressed
> > version of the compressed file (
> > Decrypt(Uncompress(Compress(Encrypt(text))) != text). So all usable
> > compression routines add information to the file. They just do it in a
> > way that takes up less space than the original file. As someone else
> > pointed out, you are better off compressing first then encrypting. That
> > would obscure the compression marks.
>
> I said that the output would itself then be encrypted again, multiple times,
> in multiple ways. It could be encrypted in 1000 different arbitrarily
> chosen ways. Further, not all compression algorithms add identifiable
> signatures or structures.
>
> > > > >If you disguise the language patterns by making
> > > > > sure that even the same phrase doesn't create the same series of
> bytes,
> > > then
> > > > > you remove the ability to deduce a new algorithm.
> > > > >
> > > > But you can't do that with a 4 bit key. A 4 bit key means a cycle
> length
> > > > of 16. So every 16 letters, or words, you can get repeats. These
> repeats
> > > > will have spacing with a factor of 16. If 16 is the smallest factor,
> > > > then I need only to test for key lenghts of 2 and 4, which totals out
> to
> > > > 4 +16 = 20 keys.
> > >
> > > No, a 4 bit key simply means that the key is 4 bits. The key may not
> use
> > > factors at all, it might be the value that is XOR'd for example, or any
> of a
> > > billion other ways those 4 bits might be used to encode the data.
> You're
> > > making the critical error of assuming the use of a known algorithm,
> which is
> > > exactly my point.
> > >
> > A Caesar Cypher on an extended alphabet is a 5 bit key. It is a simple
> > add or xor the 5 bit key to each letter. This is easily read as the
> > cycle would be immediately recognized as one byte. A 4 bit key applied
> > thus to each nibble would also be recognized as one byte, with upper and
> > lower nibbles equal. Another possibility would be to use the 4 bit key
> > as the seed for a random number generator. But then there are only 16
> > possible random number sequences. Any random number generator with a 4
> > bit seed will have a short cycle length easily identified. Even if you
> > expand the 4 bits to int length, all your messages would be encrypted
> > with one of only 16 sequences. Repetition would be noticed across
> > messages if not along messages. Even if you did something as complex as
> > using the 4 bit key as the key for triple DES, it would be a give away.
> > Only 20 (max) tries, about 3 uSec, needed to decode.
>
> Suppose the 4 bit key was actually an index into a set of 1024 bit keys
> known only to the two parties?
>
> You're still not getting my point. That a 4 bit key can mean *ANYTHING*,
> and unless you know what the key is referencing, it's useless.
No a four bit key can mean only 1 of 16 possible things :
0000 0001 0010 0011
0100 0101 0110 0111
1000 1001 1010 1011
1100 1101 1110 1111
If your key is one of those, then each "A" will be encrypted the same.
If your key is to choose one as a start and then rotate through the
list, then the cycle will repeat every 16th character. Characters that
occure in the same place every 16th block will be encrypted the same.
But this scheme has more than 4 bits. It has the 4 bits plus 4 bits to
indicate the starting point and the necessary bits to describe each
entry into the table. However, the scheme still falls easily. An
attacker would look for repeating sequences which would possibly encode
something like "th" or "and" or "das". The attacker, at first doesn't
care what the diagraph/trigraph represents. Only that he can find them.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 20:28:21 -0700
Eric Leblanc wrote:
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > Typically, when trying to break encryption without knowing the algorithm,
> > you either look for common algorithms, or you look for patterns that match
> > known language patterns. If you disguise the language patterns by making
> > sure that even the same phrase doesn't create the same series of bytes, then
> > you remove the ability to deduce a new algorithm.
>
> Just a historical point here.
>
> When the German made the Enigma machine they made it so that if you encoded
> the letter 'A' it never coded itself to 'A'. From what i read, it helped the
> Allies find pattern.
>
> >
> > > > Yes, if you had the software that encoded the data, you could probably
> > > > reverse engineer it and figure it out, but if you only have encrypted
> > data
> > > > and know that a key is 4 bits, then you could spend eternity looking for
> > the
> > > > right algorithm.
> > >
> > > There are only 16 possible 4 bit keys. NSA would probably spend about 16
> > > microseconds decrypting your message, no matter how you applied the key.
> >
> > I doubt it.
>
> Post your algorithm to sci.crypt.
>
> --
> Eric Leblanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Departement de Mathematique % Univ. du Quebec a Montreal, Montreal, Qc
> Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no
> account be allowed to do the job.
> -- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
Hehehe... that's a good idea, posting. Can you imagine trying to
decipher a message when the data stream you intercept is continual
gibberish that never stops?
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 03:30:25 GMT
"Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 07 May 2001 13:01:08 GMT, Tom Wilson wrote:
> >I can remember back in the early eighties when they proposed a Zilog-Z80
> >based home computer standard (Trying as hard as I can to remember the
name
> >of the thing. ASX keeps coming to mind, but, I'm sure that's the wrong
>
> MSX ?
>
> >acronym) It was light-years behind what Apple and Commodore had already
> >done. Their marketing effot over here died as quickly as it started.
That's
> >the only time I can remember them being so clueless when it came to
> >technology.
That sounds right.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and MP3s
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 23:32:52 -0400
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
>
> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > There are several. When you do the install, they'll be available
> > > on the appliations menu.
> >
> > Uhh...wrong. The default xmms install (assuming that you do not have
> > gnome installed) drops everything in /usr/local/bin, but not into any
> > "applications menu".
> >
> > Unless you are *specifically* using mandrake,
>
> ... or any other distribution's packaging system.
>
> > you fucking moron.
>
> No comment. :)
>
> > > If you put the drive with the MP3's in during installation, and
> > > leave it alone (with it's current formatting, etc.), then it will
> > > be mounted into the filesystem on your first boot-up.
> >
> > Are you insane?
>
> Aaron? Quite.
Most distributions will make mount-points and /etc/fstab entries for LoseDOS
partitions.
>
> --
> It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
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: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Windows enthusiasts take on Mundie's speech
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 15:35:57 +1200
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bob Hauck"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 06 May 2001 23:18:54 -0700, Matthew Gardiner
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Oh, just as a follow up, how can a GPL program fork? when all
> >> modifications must be made public and handed back to the author. The
> >> only time a program can fork is under the BSD license.
> >
> > How do you explain GNU Emacs vs XEmacs then? Or GCC vs EGCS?
>
> EGCS is a prefect example of a fork rejoining again. There is no fork any
> longer.
>
> As for GNU Emacs, this is down to the religiois fanaticism of RMS: he
> wanted every contribution to come with a signed document from the author
> to prove it was their work and it would remain GPL, or something.
>
> -Ed
Just had to add, Samba is another one that has just recently forked, one
group will continue down the same path, the other is focusing on getting
samba communicating with the proprietary add ons Microsoft has done to
the SMB protocol. Once the forked version becomes stable, the both have
agreed to merge the tree. The question was, has there ever been a long
term fork in GPL apps? that is, one lasting 20-30 years?
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
