Linux-Advocacy Digest #520, Volume #34 Tue, 15 May 01 03:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: No More Linux! (Jim Richardson)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Jim Richardson)
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Economist and Open-Source ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux still not ready for home use. ("Peet Grobler")
Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know (Salvador
Peralta)
FrontPage clone? ("William R. Cousert")
Re: MS POLL! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 05:40:24 GMT
"Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3b004c49$0$37264$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> They should bitch to that particular OEM about the deal it signed with MS
> and why it chose to.
In many cases you don't have to ask. You can read the trial depositions
from the vendors about the threatened consequences if they didn't.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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: Tue, 15 May 2001 05:41:49 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Lb0M6.855$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Define stealing from the competition.
> > > >
> > > > For instance, patent infringement (Stac - compression) and taking
code
> > > > (Apple - used quicktime code in windows video). m$ lost both cases.
> > >
> > > Stac bought a patent,
> >
> > Stac may have bought a patent, but m$ infringed upon it after it was
> > bought.
>
> Stac also violated MS's license, and lost a countersuit by MS over reverse
> engineering DOS.
>
> BTW, violating a patent isn't stealing. Millions of patent violations
occur
> daily by people that simply come up with the same algorithm as a patented
> one without even knowing it.
Hence the foolishness of patenting an algorithm.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 05:50:41 GMT
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >>Yes, licensing with usage restrictions on the library would be
> >>straightforward
> >>and would indicate that in fact the usage restriction was desired by the
> >>copyright holder. RMS and the FSF are associated with the GPL, but
> >>there is no reason to think that their fanatic interpretation on this
point
> >>represents any of the many other authors of GPL'd code.
> >
> >While that's true, I have seen a few authors of GPL'd code say that they
> >agree with RMS and I have yet to see one weigh in on the opposite side.
>
> here. I have written GPL'd code, and I disagree with almost everything
> RMS says about the license. Hope that helps ;-)
Perl is often counted as GPL'd, yet the GPL was probably applied as an
alternate license specifically to avoid the exclusion problem.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No More Linux!
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 21:56:50 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In msgid <WQCK6.202$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote: on
Thursday 10 May 2001 13:33
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9des77$6pi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Congratulations. As a supposed Wintroll, I think you'll be quite happy
> with
>> > FreeBSD so long as you don't have any needs for unsupported hardware.
>>
>> > I myself use FreeBSD on my primary server, and have been using it off
> and on
>> > for years. It is indeed quite easy to setup and install (in some ways
> it's
>> > more difficult than, say, the Mandrake setup, but it gives you a lot
> more
>> > power over what you install without making it as difficult as many of
> the
>> > other Linux installs).
>>
>> > I don't know of any people that have used FreeBSD and Windows that
>> > would
>> > complain too much about it, unlike Linux. Things like standardized
>> > directory trees, standardized installation packages, etc, make it
>> > really nice.
>>
>> Yes, debian has that, but wintrolls like you seem to conveniently forget
>> it.
>
> No, debian doesn't have it. Not all Linux packages work with apt-get,
> such
> as rpm packages. FreeBSD has a single package system.
>
> The problem is that there are hundreds of Linux distros, but only a single
> FreeBSD distro.
>
>
>
>
All debian packages work with apt-get, just as all FreeBSD packages work
with ports. Not all linux packages have .debs available. But I would hazard
a bet that there are more debs available, than the official package list of
FreeBSD.
This isn't a slam against FBSD, but pointing out an inaccuracy of Eric's
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 22:50:31 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In msgid <W4mK6.85$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote: on
Wednesday 09 May 2001 18:26
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > > Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 8 May
>> > > > > 2001
>> > > > > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > > >> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001
>> > 20:25:59
>> > > > > >> [...]
>> > > > > >> >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.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> The NSA? Sure, 'less than a minute' is accurate, but 'a few
>> > > > > >> milliseconds' is more precise.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Sure. If you are so confident, i'll give you an encoded bit of
> data.
>> > > > I'll
>> > > > > >give you a week to figure out what it is. It uses a 1 bit key,
> and
>> > the
>> > > > keys
>> > > > > >value is 1.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Give it to the NSA, lamer. Guffaw!
>> > > >
>> > > > In other words, you can't back up what you claim. If it is so
> insecure,
>> > it
>> > > > should be quite easy for you to crack. Here's another hint, it
>> > > > uses
> and
>> > > > extremely simple encoding mechanism.
>> > >
>> > > Well then, you go right ahead and sell your "secure" coding scheme.
> I'm
>> > > sure your customers will be very happy about the security it offers.
>> >
>> > No, that would expose the algorithm to people with disassemblers,
>> > making
> it
>> > no longer secret.
>>
>> Then its not secure then is it?
>
> You must have a strange definintion of secure. Secure simply means that
> the data cannot be cracked (or can't be cracked within a time frame in
> which the data might still be useful).
>
>
>
>
If the system is only secure as long as the algorithm is hidden, then it's
not very secure. Ask microsoft, they get bitten (or rather shoot themselves
in the foot) with that sort of thinking on a regular basis.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 01:22:10 -0500
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <R90M6.854$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >You are certainly on the ball Charlie.
> >
> >You "just" discovered something that happened over a year ago and was
fixed
> >over a year ago. Further, there is no evidence the back door was ever
used.
>
> So are you EF. It's a new one!
No, it's not. Search for "Netscape Engineers are Weenies!", and it's the
same one.
>
>
>
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/14/1858201
> >>
> >> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/entrepreneur.html?s=smallbiz
> >> /articles/20010514/microsoft_ackno
> >>
> >>
> >> Microsoft admits to screwing thousands of business owners out of the
> >security,
> >> to jeapordizing confidential customer information, to cheating the U.S.
> >> government and the tax payers of their confidential security for years
> >> without their consent!
> >>
> >> EXTRA EXTRA EXTRA!!!!!
> >>
> >> EXTRA EXTRA EXTRA!!!!!
> >>
> >> Microsoft has proven once again by their own admission to be
> >> totally untrustworthy!
> >>
> >> They CLAIM they knew nothing about it.
> >> They appearently don't ever do a code review,
> >> for years yet!
> >>
> >> And I'll say it again! Would you quit reading CEO magazine,
> >> pull your heads out of
> >> your butts and install Linux servers before you get sued!!!
> >>
> >> You know your liable now!
> >>
> >>
> >> How many god damn fucking clues do you need here folks!
> >>
> >> -
> >> Charlie
> >> -------
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Charlie
> -------
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Economist and Open-Source
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 01:34:12 -0500
"Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >You can't detect the bug unless you're looking for it.
> > > > ----------------------^-------------------------------
> > > > |
> > > > BINGO
> > > >
> > > > Regression tests look for bugs just like all other tests. You just
don't
> > > > run the full suite of tests and concentrate on the area changed *and
its
> > > > interactions with other software components*. You can't possibly
test
> > > > every path through a program affected by a change. I always try to
> > > > include in the subset chosen for testing some remote and subtle
paths
> > > > through the program. I am very happy if the test result clears the
fixed
> > > > bug and finds a new one, not introduced by the fix. If the fix
> > > > introduces a new bug it is rejected.
> > >
> > > Isn't that what testing is about? the point of testing is to look for
> > > bugs, try to confuse the program and cause problems by trying things
in
> > > different ways, isolate the bugs, fix the problem, then repeat the
test
> > > again. If you have written out a program, and you have no bugs, you
> > > have obviously not tested the program properly.
> >
> > That's unit testing, or black box testing.
> >
> > Regression testing tends to be done with scripts, and is based on
previously
> > discovered bugs. You regression test to make sure that old bugs don't
creep
> > back in.
> Pressman ("Software Engineering, A Practitioner's Approach, 3rd ed.")
> defines regression testing as "repeating past tests to ensure that
> modifications have not introduced faults into previously operational
> software" and as being conducted to "ensure that new errors have not
> been introduced". Watts Humphries("Managing the software Process") "run
> a subset of previously executed integration and function tests to
> ensure that program changes have not degraded the system". I could go
> on, but note that none of the definitions say anything about previously
> discovered bugs.
>
> I like to add in a few paths that weren't tested before, just in case a
> bug was missed last time. Another thing regression tests help with is
> what I like to call "uncovered" bugs. Those are bugs that were hidden by
> the bug that is being fixed, but now come into play.
http://www.planetit.com/techcenters/docs/management_issues/expert/PIT2000101
8S0033
What exactly do you think the "past tests" are determined from? Previously
reported bugs, which are incorporated into the test plans.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 06:13:07 GMT
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> His position is even more bizarre, if we consider a very simple algorithm,
> used by everyone, that contains a (ok, very simple) translation table:
>
> binary multiplication[1].
>
> Binary multiplication consists of applying the following table to
> two binary numbers in a specific way:
>
> 0 0 0
> 0 1 0
> 1 0 0
> 1 1 1
>
> >So in that sense, yes, it does help.
>
> [1] The above explanation of binary multiplication is intended for T.
Max's
> education, not as an insult to the reading audience ;-)
Well, at least you didn't post an entire boolean truth table and explain it
in detail...
Forgiven ;)
------------------------------
From: "Peet Grobler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux still not ready for home use.
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 14:30:56 +0200
I just had to say - brilliant.
My hat goes off to you...
Bobby D. Bryant wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Bob H wrote:
>
>> Gotta agree. My dad at age 75 took up computing last summer, using
Win98.
>> He's getting pretty darn good at it too. But if he had to look at a
>> command
>> prompt (boy do I like helping people at work by using a Dos box-the looks
of
>> fear are astounding), he would have dropped it right away. Much less a
>> Linux
>> command prompt.
>
>Interesting. I'm running Linux, and there's not a command prompt visible
>anywhere on my screen.
>
>More interesting yet, I'm using -- are you sitting down? -- a keyboard to
type
>this message.
>
>I'll bet you sophisto Windows users use the mouse and pull down a menu to
tell
>the compter which character goes in your message next, or at least have a
>completion utility that lets you just type in the first word of your post
and
>then automatically guesses the rest of it for you, but I'm content with
that
>oldfangled keyboard thingy for that kind of thing.
>
>I find it useful for various other things too, when I'm not in the mood to
>click around 8-10 times just to do something easy. So though I don't
happen to
>have a command line visible right now, I know how to get one faster than
you
>can say 'registry'.
>
>Bobby Bryant
>Austin, Texas
>
>
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.retail.category.management,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 23:53:04 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers on Monday 14 May 2001 20:03:
> But it wasn't false. NT had, and does still have, real growth. Real
> numbers and real percentage points based on the whole.
Linux has 4% marketshare right now in terms of licenses shipped, and
it's only beginning to enter the marketplace as a consumer OS and a
mainstream server platform.
Nevermind the fact that there is a one-to-many relationship between
licenses shipped and installed systems. As I understand it, my own
case is fairly normal: 2 licensed CD's and 9 installed systems.
--
Salvador Peralta -o)
Currently enjoying Tcl and Tk / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
From: "William R. Cousert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FrontPage clone?
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 06:42:49 GMT
Is there anything similar to FrontPage for Linux? A coworker uses FrontPage
on a daily basis, and would like to switch over to Linux.
If not, is there any way to get FrontPage 97 or 2000 to run under Wine? How
well do they work with Win4Lin?
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS POLL!
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 06:51:54 GMT
"Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> When I was younger, I thought it would be interesting to join the Peace
> Corps and work in a third-world country. It looks like the travel
> requirement is going to go away.
If you're in a hurry, just move to California. When the final dotcom dries
up ,the rolling blackouts come your way, and the tree-hugger police remove
your washing machine and freezer (Can't let the capitolist pigs waste water
and hoard food, now can we?) - Just add one good earthquake and you're in
Bangledesh!
Glad I turned down the job offer that would have had me living in that
hell-hole!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 00:31:04 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matan Ziv-Av) writes:
> On Mon, 14 May 2001 09:35:13 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>
>> I don't think CPU cache qualifies for the definition of "copy"
>> in the statutes.
>>
>> From 17 USC 101:
>>
>> | ''Copies'' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in
>> | which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed,
>> | and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or
>> | otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a
>> | machine or device. The term ''copies'' includes the material
>> | object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first
>> | fixed.
>>
>> Due to the extremely transient nature of data in the cache,
>
> Not more transient than the data in the ram itself.
Far, far more transient, as the cache is flushed when the
processor switches tasks (hundred of times per second).
>> and the inability to address it specifically (unlike RAM or a
>
> Depending on the specific implementation of the processor, it might be.
But in current processors, it is _not_, and hence this is an
argument of the "if the moon were made of green cheese" variety.
>> disk), one cannot "perceive, reproduce or otherwise communicate"
>> the program being executed.
>
> If ram content is lost, whatever is in the cache can be copied back to
> ram.
No. No computer I know of has this facility. It is theoretically
possible, but thorougly useless, so never implemented.
>
>> And because the cache is all on-chip,
>> it's not identifiable as a separate device, so there can't possibly
>> be a copy, unless you want to argue that the data in the CPU's
>> registers, if observed and recorded long enough, also constitutes
>> a statutory copy.
>
> The cpu is a different chip from the flash chip where the original
> is.
> There is nothing in the text you quoted that can differentiate between
> a cache on the cpu of the flash device, and a cache in ram of the disk.
Exact. There is also no reason to consider the on-die cache
in a CPU as a separate device. Or if you do, you should consider
each and every register a separate device, and accept that
(given a lot of non-standard hardware) you _could_ obtain a
copy of a program or data by recording the contents of the CPU
registers, thus turning them into statutory copies of the
program.
Turning it around, why even consider a Flash ROM and a
CPU, soldered together on a PCB, as two independent devices?
>
> What about the following caches:
> L2 cache on S7 boards (on the motherboard or on a special module)
I don't know a CPU that can access its cache as a separate
memory device (ie the CPU issues a memory address, and the
cache ensures the CPU gets the data as soon as possible.
You can't address the cache as such).
> L2 cache on a P2 processor module (different chip from cpu)?
Can't be accessed by the CPU as a separate memory device.
Would require special hardware (a backup battery at least)
to allow it to be read out. Cache contents are in any case
useless without the CPU's TLB information, so at best a
potential statutory copy when combined with the CPU.
> Ram on a PCI caching disk controller?
Can't be accessed by the CPU as a separate memory device;
most often not even mapped into the CPU's address space, as
the controller has to be compatible with non-cacheing
controllers (in the PC world, at least). If equipped with
battery back-up, it _could_ keep bits and pieces of the various
disk drive contents in memory, but because it operates at
track/sector level, useless to reconstitute the original
disk _without_ the latter for directory information, which
clearly makes it _not_ a copy.
> Buffer on an ide disk PCB?
>
> All of them are physical devices from which the work _can_ be reproduced.
No, _could_ be reproduced. You'll need to add circuitry to
enable you to access those components. Even though caches
are implemented using RAM chips (or logic, on a CPU die),
they are merely accelerators, and mediate between the faster
and slower tiers of memory, or between (slow) memory and
a (fast) CPU. Caches shadow the content of the device they
serve, and considering their content (which, I repeat,
you _cannot_ access as such in a standard system) as a
statutary copy is technological nonsense, based on
superficial knowledge of computer technology.
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
