Linux-Advocacy Digest #402, Volume #34 Thu, 10 May 01 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Caldera CEO agrees with MS ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux Users...Why? (Brad Sims)
Re: Caldera CEO agrees with MS ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ray Fischer)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: My plan worked! ("William R. Cousert")
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: My plan worked! (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: No More Linux! ("Charles Kerr")
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Caldera CEO agrees with MS
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 18:28:02 -0400
Mikkel Elmholdt wrote:
>
> "Bob Tennent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 10 May 2001 12:19:38 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2717264,00.html
> > >
> > >Ransom Love (his real name, ISYN) says he agrees with MS that the GPL is
> not
> > >appropriate for Commerical software, and is considering alternate
> licenses
> > >such as the BSDL.
> >
> > And what does this have to do with Linux? Does he plan to write a new
> operating
> > system kernel to replace Linux? If he writes the code, he can choose the
> > license. And if he wants to allow Microsoft to grab his code and fork it,
> > that's his choice. I'm just glad Linus didn't make the same choice.
> >
> > Bob T.
>
> Why are you glad about that? Who will it hurt if someone grabs some Open
> Source, forks it, and releases it a closed proprietary software? The
The entire user community, that's who.
> original free software would still be out there, as free as ever. So would
> Linux be in a different place today if that had happened to it?
>
> Mikkel
--
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: Brad Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 22:28:48 GMT
In ashen ink, the dread hand of pip wrote:
> Pan is very good but a bit on the unstable side. It is the
> closet thing I have seen to a really good gui newsreader.
>
I am waiting for the linux version of Xnews.
Right now I use KNode and TIN.
--
I sense much distrust in you. Distrust leads to cynicism,
cynicism leads to bitterness, bitterness leads to the
Awareness Of True Reality which is referred to by
those-who-lack-enlightenment as "paranoia". I approve.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Caldera CEO agrees with MS
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 18:28:51 -0400
Bob Tennent wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 May 2001 21:36:25 +0200, Mikkel Elmholdt wrote:
> >> If he writes the code, he can choose the
> >> license. And if he wants to allow Microsoft to grab his code and fork it,
> >> that's his choice. I'm just glad Linus didn't make the same choice.
> >>
> >Why are you glad about that? Who will it hurt if someone grabs some Open
> >Source, forks it, and releases it a closed proprietary software? The
> >original free software would still be out there, as free as ever. So would
> >Linux be in a different place today if that had happened to it?
>
> Hard to say. When Linux got started the license situation for BSD was very
> murky. Who knows what would have happened otherwise? I very much doubt
> that all the kernel hackers would have been as eager to contribute had
> Linux not been GPLed.
>
> According to MS, forking is bad. So why do they criticize the GPL which is
> mainly responsible for preventing forks? Their hypocricy is staggering.
Micro$oft believes in forking their customers as often and as hard as possible.
>
> Bob T.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 22:29:34 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>B) the AIDS virus is small enough to get through LATEX (this is
> why anti-AIDS lubricants were invented)
An outright lie.
Latex condoms are impervious to water and air molecules. You can
demonstrate that simply by filling on with air or water and see if
it leaks.
Viruses are thousands of times larger than water or air molecules.
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Thu, 10 May 2001 22:33:18 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > And the fact that the most common applications are all Microsoft
> > > products doesn't seem to register with you, does it?
> >
> > You sure about that?
>
> Prove him wrong.
That's difficult. He repeats that claim like
a mantra, but he doesn't tell us what he means
by it.
My best guess is that it's fancy way of saying
"Microsoft makes Word and Excel"; and if so,
then I can't prove him wrong, because he's
right.
I suspect that's why he's sticking so closely
to the wording he's chosen- he's hoping that
by so phrasing it, some people will read more
into it than he could defend.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "William R. Cousert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My plan worked!
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 22:35:06 GMT
Your computer has the "love letter" virus.
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Public wrote:
>
> > Now that I know who all the fags are in this group, I have you kill
> > filed, and you don't know who I am!
> >
> This is fine.
> Nice that we talked about it.
> Now call mommy, let her prepare your bottle of milk.
>
> Peter
>
> --
>
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:21:15 +0200
James Philips wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>> But I don´t understand what you´re complaining about.
>> Sure, Aaron Kookis is a jerk who should be autokillfiled.
>> But above quote is correct. You certainly don´t have any experience
>> with the newer distros, say SuSE7.1 or RedHat7.
>> These are *easier* to set up than a windows-box for an unexperienced
>> newcomer, not harder. Two years ago that would have been a different
>> story.
>
> It's true that Linux is very easy to install, as long as the
> distribution
> can detect and configure all the installed hardware. If the user
> doesn't ever upgrade hardware or install new software then they probably
> wouldn't
> have any problems using the system thanks to KDE/GNOME. But most users
> do
> add new hardware and most do want to play with new software. I think
> that it's fair to say that even in the most easy to use Linux
> distributions, fairly simply tasks like that are usually significantly
> more complicated
> than they are in Windows. I can't see how anyone can really use Linux
> productively without learning something about it, while many people
> manage to use Mac OS and Windows for years and stay almost totally
> computer illiterate.
>
I have to disagree.
First, in my experience linux finds hardware it knows about better than
windows. Case in point: A notebook with pcmcia-network-card.
Under windows (win98SE) a quite difficult task to just install it.
Under Linux it worked already during the initial install!
Sure, you find more and easier drivers for cards in windows. But it is
changing very fast.
Second: The users. I have *never* ever seen one almost computer
illiterate who stayed that way for long or who did not need massive
amounts of pampering while using windows.
I really cannot see any difference here.
Peter
--
There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count and those who can't.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Thu, 10 May 2001 22:35:52 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > Or, more honestly, it's the best tool to build apps for that desktop,
> > > because it dominates (criminally) that desktop. Nobody ever accused
you
> > > of being honest, though, eh, Daniel? :-*
> >
> > The amazing thing isn't really that you believe that.
> >
>
> OK, Daniel...^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ thats you being
> passive aggtressive.
I'm glad you are here to tell me these things;
Max never does.
Can you explain why that is "passive agressive"?
I really truly don't get it.
> > The amazing thing is that you can't wrap your
> > brain around the notion of anyone disagreeing
> > with you.
>
> The amazing thing is you wont take your head out of Gates' butt long
> enough to realize what Microsoft has done, despite the fact that you
> have been given quotes from memos and emails from M$ employees and M$
> competitors.
Apparently you, also, find it hard to wrap your
brain around the notion of anyone disagreeing
with you.
> You ususal repsone..."oh, Im sure thats not what he meant..."
My usual response to your quotes is to point
out that "that" isn't what he said.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My plan worked!
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:25:24 +0200
surrender wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Unknown"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote something like:
>
>> Now that I know who all the fags are in this group, I have you kill
>> filed, and you don't know who I am!
>>
>> :)
>>
>>
> 99,9% sure that you are Jan Johanson.
>
No, Jan is way to dumb for this. His IQ is just enough not to drop dead
immedeately (vegetative nerve system in working order, but thats about it)
Peter
--
Linux is like a Wig-Wam: No Gates, No Windows, Apache inside
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Thu, 10 May 2001 22:38:24 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > You don't want to admit that
> > your favorite platform- MacOS for you, isn't it?-
> > is not up to par.
>
> Compared to what?
Windows.
> I use both Mac and Linux (PPC and Intel) becasue i
> want to. If had the choice at work, I'd wipe the HD of every Windows
> machine at work.
I know; but your personal preferences are not
what matters. Windows is a development
platform, and it is the developers preferences
that makes all the difference in the end.
[snip]
> > Programs than can print GIFs are more
> > common than those that can print PDFs, no?
>
> I dunno. You thnk you know everything. You tell us. Oh, are you saying
> GIF is better and more portable than PDF?
Better no. More portable, yes.
------------------------------
From: "Charles Kerr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No More Linux!
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 17:45:26 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dave Martel"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PAN's really screwed up anyway. Nothing major, just a lot of unfinished
> little stuff that gets on my nerves. Some of the other newsreaders
> would be OK if Agent hadn't spoiled me. As a matter of principle I like
> to keep Windows software off my *nix machines, but I'm going to have to
> make an exception for Agent.
It'll take a lot longer for those unfinished little things to get
finished if the developers don't know what itches you're wanting
scratched.
For the record, pan bug reports & feature requests should be sent to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cheers,
Charles
Pan Programmer - http://pan.rebelbase.com/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:03:13 GMT
Said Michael Pye in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 9 May 2001 20:44:33
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
>> In the future, might I suggest "encourage" or "petition".
>
>Personally, I would suggest not typing hour long usenet messages when you
>have writers block ;). Yeah, that's probably more appropriate...
You can suggest it all you want, its not going to do any good. ;-)
Or did you mean YOU shouldn't do that?
>> The world needs more people like you, Michael, even if you are clueless
>> about the web. ;-)
>
>Ooooo.... Someone whats trouble... Clueless?!
>
>> (I'm joking, I'm joking. Honest!)
>
>Oh. OK.
>
>You'd better be... ;)
I am.
>> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>
>No worries. More experience under the belt. We may happen to spar again in
>the future...
I hope so; you ain't bad. But then, you haven't necessarily even cut
your teeth yet. Let me introduce you to a guy you should talk to. His
handle is "JS PL"....
--
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: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:03:15 GMT
Said Donal K. Fellows in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 10 May 2001
>Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[...]
>>> You can use it with all the other code you want. You just can't use a
>>> GPL library without infecting your program. So use an LGPL library;
>>> that's what it's for.
>>
>> LGPL still has problems.
>> And couple of important libraries are released under the GPL, not LGPL.
>
>Most notably readline[*], which has caused me some non-trivial amount of
>grief in the past. I do not believe that you can make a BSD library
>even optionally dependent upon a GPL library and keep the licensing as
>BSD.
>From what I understand, ANY library that has a non-GPL version
(sufficiently compatible with the GPL version to be completely
interchangeable) can be used without any regard for the GPL, as long as
you aren't distributing the GPL library with your code (or using static
links?).
The only time this 'derivative and infringing through library calls'
comes up, according to the FSF, is when the only library the program can
use (either because of compatibility or because of lack of alternatives)
is GPL.
>Now, since changing the licensing is an absolute no-no (it would
>annoy very many current users of the code, and rightly so) the only way
>out if this is to keep the two unconnected except by whatever works
>that third-parties do. Which sucks (the CLI to Tcl is currently stuck
>with whatever facilities the console's cooked mode offers) but the
>alternative is to create an unencumbered readline equivalent, and I've
>not got the time to reinvent the wheel right now.
At this point, the best attack against the GPL seems to be that the
license is "over-reaching", and therefore unenforceable as a whole, in
this situation. It would be an uphill battle in court, though, and
nobody seems anxious to try it, though there is precedent. So the
solution is don't use readline, or GPL your code, just as the authors of
readline obviously intended.
>People who GPL libraries should have their toenails slowly peeled off
>with red-hot tongs by a cackling black-hooded torturer in a medaeval
>dungeon. Or be forced to use the latest version of VB... (Bwahahahaha!)
If lack of willingness to contribute to the engineering community were a
hanging offense, then the GPL never would have been created to begin
with, for it is that practice in commercial, proprietary, closed-source
software which spawned its invention. Since GPL is still open source,
even if you don't agree to the license, I still can't understand why
anyone would complain about it, in comparison.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:03:16 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in alt.destroy.microsoft on 9 May 2001 23:28:18 -0500;
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Why do you assume that anyone (even me, who cares not for Microsoft
>> tactics) announced this as purely MS disrespect? I myself posted it
>> to illustrate that UNIX is not immune to hacking.
>
>I did not make this assumption of you. But given your past posts, the fact
>that you included "alt.destroy.microsoft" as one of the groups you
>crossposted to which included the utterly unrelated COLA group - these
>things together allow me to conclude you have your agenda and are
>fullfilling it.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. If it weren't for all you pathetic sock puppet
WINTROLLS posting in COLA, maybe it would be "utterly unrelated" to
alt.destroy.microsoft. But your presence proves that particular premise
to be pointless posturing on your part.
[...]
>> You perhaps are unable to deal with facts that contradict your
>> Weltanschung, meine Freund? It is now totally (100%, as opposed to
>> the 99.9% feeling I had before) apparent to me that you have
>> a deep-seated agenda.
>
>My only agenda is to live my life happily. All else is just getting there...
>I have no need to advance MS nor retard Linux; I just like to talk about my
>preferences and correct fud and lies when I hear/read them.
Oh, yea. We believe that. Because we're clueless and have never read
any of your posts, maybe. Doh!
>Why DID you post this message to alt.destroy.microsoft if you didn't have
>your own anti-MS agenda?\
Because it is painfully obvious that, despite your denials, you have an
extremely pro-MS agenda. Why else would you even pretend that Windows
can even hold a candle to Linux, as an OS? Why else would you remain so
purposefully blind to the rampant monopolization which causes MS to be
so common, and yet so unpopular?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:03:18 GMT
Said Matthew Gardiner in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 10 May 2001
>> My only agenda is to live my life happily. All else is just getting there...
>> I have no need to advance MS nor retard Linux; I just like to talk about my
>> preferences and correct fud and lies when I hear/read them.
>>
>> Why DID you post this message to alt.destroy.microsoft if you didn't have
>> your own anti-MS agenda?\
>
>I don't have anti-ms agenda. I couldn't care less what Microsoft does.
>If they want to try .nyet, they let them, let the market decide whether
>it is going to be a failure or success. If people want to use Windows
>over Linux, then by all means, go ahead. However, I do get pissed off
>when people complain about Windows being unstable or crap, yet unwilling
>to move to another OS? haven't these lusers heard of the market place,
>when demand goes down, Microsoft will start to re-evaluate and improve
>their products, but until then, Microsoft will never get the message,
>and why should they? the market place is driven by the demands of the
>consumer, and if the consumers don't speak with their wallet, the
>companies will think everything is a-ok.
Correction: the marketplace is *supposed* to be driven by the demands of
the consumer. Which is, of course, why, a hundred years ago, the U.S.
Congress passed the Sherman Act, to ensure that this is all that would
drive demand, and the desires of the producers (outside desire to
compete and profit) are prevented from controlling prices or excluding
competition.
Having been found guilty of doing just this thing, and thereby providing
more than adequate evidence that your claim that MS will magically learn
to be competitive, and stop being anti-competitive, if people simply
refuse to buy MS products, is just plain brain-dead. The market has
been rejecting monopoly crapware for YEARS, and it hasn't done a lick of
good, obviously. Thus, the federal conviction, soon to be judged on
appeal.
Even if they should "win the appeal" (at most resulting in a new trial),
though, pretending that MS hasn't been monopolizing, rather than
competing, for years, is just ignorance gone blind. The judges and
lawyers need to maintain prudent presumption of innocence, but that is
for courtrooms. In the real world, we are not required to deny the
evidence of our senses.
There is a rather critical difference between your fantasy world and the
real world; the difference between being unwilling and being unable. I
don't cotton to any ludicrous second-guessing about what people "should"
be able to do that they are not already able to do. If you're going to
say they "should" be able to avoid MS crapware, then I'd have to agree
with you, but that's just double-checking that the criminal monopoly is
remedied, not a matter of assuming the consumers are somehow unable to
make competent choices in the marketplace.
The arrogance of your position is both astounding and pathetic, and
extremely unreasonable.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:03:22 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 9 May 2001
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 8 May 2001 23:15:25 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>> > The encoded data is (just the one line, not including carriage return):
>> >
>> > 2jhGjyD<qYwDgilj0sohkVuAy.
>>
>> Anybody can make an unbreakable code if you only need to keep one line
>> of data secret.
>
>Thank you. This is exactly what I was saying. So long as the algorithms
>are secret, the size of the key or any other value is irrelevant, it's
>effectively unbreakable.
You are mistaken, because you have not used an algorithm; you used a
translation table. This is obfuscation, and you are correct that it is
well known that it can be handy, "effectively unbreakable", at least as
long as the data so encoded remains entirely trivial and irrelevant.
If you expect the data to remain secure when it is not both trivial and
irrelevant, neither a translation table, nor any algorithm or
combination of algorithms (or combination of translation tables or
algorithms) can make it secure without strong encryption using a
relatively large key. THAT is the only way to make a code "effectively
unbreakable", though you are correct that it might often be easier to
just make it "effectively not worth breaking".
>> The problem comes with trying to use the code to
>> encrypt lots of data over a period of time. Relying on a secret
>> algorithm is just horribly bad practice, no matter how good you think it
>> is. It takes only one disgruntled former employee to destroy your
>> scheme.
>
>It's not a matter of how "good" it is, it's simply a matter of how "secret"
>it is. If your disgruntled employee cannot access the encryption algorithm,
>they can't leak it. That's why the military uses black boxes for
>cryptography. They're kept secure and only a tiny few have access to their
>internals. You just pump data in and out.
The military uses "black boxes" for cryptography because that is what a
technicians call any special purpose electronic assembly! It is not
because they are like enigma machines, Erik; such archaic technology was
replaced years ago with strong key encryption methods; these black boxes
are nothing but special purpose computers designed to encode things very
quickly. It is not any "secret in the box" that keeps anything secure
these days; its the difficulty of deriving the prime factors from large
numbers used as keys!
In a metaphoric sense, you can consider this nothing more than an
extension of "obfuscation", but the analytical difference between your
attempts to obfuscate, and the security of real modern encryption, is
that your stuff is NOT secure in any way against a serious attempt to
crack it, and real encryption IS secure.
I'd appreciate it if someone mentioned to Erik that I have destroyed his
position fully three times, now. Apparently, I must be in his kill
file. ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
