Linux-Advocacy Digest #546, Volume #34 Wed, 16 May 01 07:13:02 EDT
Contents:
M$ spying (was Re: Win 9x is horrid) ("Joseph T. Adams")
Analysis of the Linux Report from MS (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Terry Porter)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Moon Shyne")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Moon Shyne")
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? (Anonymous)
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? (Anonymous)
Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.privacy.spyware
Subject: M$ spying (was Re: Win 9x is horrid)
Date: 16 May 2001 09:49:41 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: You people really amaze me. You are so paranoid about the activation
: scheme, and refuse to believe MS when they say something. If you think
: about it, if they wanted to collect information about you, they could do it
: without activation and send encrypted packets out that would be impossible
: to detect.
: MS doesn't need activation to spy on you if they want to, so I don't see the
: big fuss over this.
The moment I suggest in any other context that M$ could and almost
certainly did do this already . . . most of the Winvocates go
catatonic, claiming that this was impossible. Even those who aren't
Winvocates accuse me of paranoia.
You folks can't have it both ways, so which is it? Is it possible
for M$ to collect information about us, and send it in encrypted form
to unnamed IP addresses, or isn't it?
And why, exactly, did my sole WinNT box - which was built with MSDN
disks, has never had a routable IP address, and has no software not
made by M$ - attempt to initiate connections to unnamed IP addresses,
late at night, and, when allowed to do so, send seemingly random
(probably encrypted) garbage thereto? And why do other insomniac
firewall admins report similar behavior? And why did this only happen
in the early morning, when most people would have been sleeping?
Can I prove that it's M$ spying? Nope. The source is closed. But no
one can prove that it wasn't, and there is a lot of circumstantial
evidence strongly suggesting that it was. There isn't anyone else's
software there, and the box has always been behind a masquerading
firewall and thus is not likely to have been cracked. And M$ is not
known for ethical behavior, even by the abysmally low standards of
large multinational corporations in general. According to Occam's
Razor, the simplest explanation for a given set of facts is the one
most likely to be correct. I therefore conclude that M$ almost
certainly already spies on at least some of its users at least some of
the time.
BTW: Windows is banned from my network now, for security reasons, as
is all closed-source software with a VERY few exceptions, all of which
must be behind the firewall. All the exceptions (Netscape, Star
Office, and Adobe Acrobat Reader, all of which are "free beer" but not
"free speech") are being phased out.
Joe
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 20:05:17 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS
Following a link from slashdot, I was interested to see an MS document
entitled Linux in Retail and Hospitality. A converted document can be
found at http://www.iglu.org.il/linux_report.html, the originals are at
http://www.microsoft.com/europe/industry/retail/strategicwhitepapers/2523.htm
Some quotes from the paper (I've tried not to take it out of context,
please repost if you feel I have!):
"Numerous Installation Versions
There are over 188 different distributions of Linux available today,
with the number growing all the time. You have to first decide which
distribution and graphical user interface to use. Next, you have to
deal with the limitations you will be faced with. For example, there is
no guarantee that any software you develop on one distribution will run
under another distribution. Nor is it guaranteed, or even likely, that
an application you develop for one GUI will run under a different GUI,
even on the same distribution. You do not have this problem with
Microsoft’s platform, since there are only a few different versions, all
with a common user interface."
</quote>
Microsoft makes: Windows 2000, Windows ME (soon to have Windows XP for
consumers) and Windows CE. In the Windows 2000 stable they have: Windows
2000 Professional, Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2000 Advanced Server and
Windows 2000 Data Centre. This is a fair range of products, which is a
fair enough thing to do: each has it's own strengths and capabilities.
However, this is no different than from the various Linux distribution.
I would also dispute the fact that their are 188 distributions of Linux.
Perhaps they would care to list these distributions? If you look at the
Linux distribution market fairly then you will find that their are only
a few key distributions: Debian Linux, RedHat Linux, Turbo Linux,
Caldera Linux, Mandrake Linux and Slackware Linux. As you can see, their
are not so many as Microsoft say. To put it bluntly, saying that their
are 188 different distributions of Linux is ridiculous, as there are
many hobbiest distributions (where someone has put together their own
distribution: just because they could or just to see how the different
components go together in Linux).
When Microsoft writes "For example, there is no guarantee that any
software you develop on one distribution will run under another
distribution", this is a fair enough comment until you realise that all
of the main Linux distributions keep up to date with packages and
release upgrades to main programs as soon as they can package them.
There is also a filesystem standard that most distributions adhere to
fairly well; Linux development is incredibly portable as standard
libraries are used and if you can compile on one system cleanly then you
will be able to compile on another system. From here it is just a matter
of "packaging" the developed program to the required distribution.
Microsoft also writes: "Nor is it guaranteed, or even likely, that an
application you develop for one GUI will run under a different GUI, even
on the same distribution." This is not correct. I can run all KDE
programs under GNOME so long as I have KDE installed correctly. Any
GNOME programs can be run under KDE so long as GNOME is installed. Any
Motif program can run so long as the Motif libraries are installed. Not
only will it run under another GUI, but it will run on the same
distribution. Clearly Microsoft are mistaken, and I feel that they
should not be publishing such wildly inaccurate information.
<quote>
"Lack Of Available Software
Software for the Linux operating system has a long way to go. There are
not very many well-known or enterprise-wide software packages available
for Linux today, especially for POS. There is also a huge void on the
Linux platform in server side software, like database, message queuing
services, and transaction servers. The present limitations of software
for the front end, middle tier, and server on Linux represent additional
costs you need to factor into your TCO model. You do not face this
limitation with the Microsoft platform, which has thousands of products
available to create a complete end-to-end solution."
</quote>
While Microsoft may have a very advanced and mature POS system, I again
feel that they are not accurate in some of the statements in the comment
"There is also a huge void on the Linux platform in server side
software, like database, message queuing services, and transaction
servers." At least on the database front, Oracle has release products on
the Linux platform, IBM released DB2 on Linux, and there is MySQL, mSQL
as well as PostGres. IBM has also released their MQSeries of products
(see http://www-4.ibm.com/software/ts/mqseries/), so there are message
queuing services for Linux. Level8 also have a product, called Geneva
Message Queuing http://63.111.55.182/gmq/
<quote>
Lack Of Formal Development Schedule, Research, and Standards
With Linux, no formal development schedule or set of standards exists.
There are thousands of developers contributing to it from all over the
world, with no accountability to the retail industry. Linus Torvalds
makes the final decision about what gets included in the latest Linux
release, and he has no accountability to the retail industry. There is
no formal research and development process with Linux. Microsoft plans
to spend over $4 billion in R&D in 2001 and listens to the retail
industry.
</quote>
Microsoft states that Linus Torvalds makes the final decision about what
gets included in the latest Linux release. This is also incorrect. Linus
controls the kernel development, not the developement of distributions.
I find it very suprising that Microsoft say that their is no formal
research and development with Linux - universities LOVE Linux and often
use it to research various things. To say that no formal research is
going on merely shows the author to have not done their research (or
perhaps they haven't gone to Uni lately)
I find it amusing that Microsoft feels that they have to mention that
they are spending over $4 billion in R&D - IBM alone are spending $1
billion dollars on Linux alone (refer to
http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2000/flat/toc/2_3_1_intro.html) to say
nothing of the money being spent on it by other companies in developing
for it. It's commendable that Microsoft are spending so much money, but
try to remember that they aren't the only one spending vast amounts of
money.
<quote>
Less Secure
“Open source” means that anyone can get a copy of the source code.
Developers can find security weaknesses very easily with Linux. The
same is not true with Microsoft Windows.
</quote>
Where do I start? What about the number of IIS holes that have needed to
be patched - even recently! While security through obscurity may seem
like a good thing, sooner or later someone is going to find a
potentially compromising hole in your software. When you *are*
compromised, how are you going to stop it again? you aren't able to
analyse where the problem lies as you aren't able to analyse the source
code. Instead you have to wait for Microsoft to release a service pack
or individual patch. Although Microsoft are fairly fast at releasing
these, it is unfair to say that open source is any less secure. It is
true that developers can find security weaknesses very easily in open
source software (again notice that they say Linux and don't state
whether they mean the Linux kernel or the Linux distributions). That's
why so open source software is so secure - as soon as holes are found
they are patched. You really can't ask for much more security than that.
You may want to read the rest of the things they have to say. I'm not
trying to say that all of what is published by Microsoft is not without
merit, they make some good points, but I feel that they have also been
somewhat misleading and I felt the urge to point out some of the
inaccuracies.
I'll leave the last word to Microsoft. To quote them:
"The information contained in this document represents the current view
of Microsoft Corporation on the issues discussed as of the date of
publication. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market
conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part
of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any
information presented after the date of publication."
Chris
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:53:56 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Because I'm not here to play with wintrolls or posture. The system was
> great; far superior to Windows. But, of course, Windows is more
> convenient. Since I'm not spending another dime on it, anyway (and MS
> got the last dime they'll ever get from me in 1995), I'm running an old
> Win95b copy on it for the moment. It was mostly for games (my brother
> buys all the cool new Windows games, and I wanted to play some of them)
> but for the last few weeks, it's mostly been wordprocessing. DirectX
> sucks; I could only play a quarter of the games in the end anyway.
Liar.
You are here to play and posture. You've done nothing but since you've
been here.
You make a statement "DirectX sucks" then you deliberately refuse to
give any reasons as to why it sucks. I call that playing and posturing.
Your typical response to a lot of my posts has been "Bwa-ha-ha". Instead
of a reasoned and polite discourse as to why I might be wrong, you play
with ridicule and you posture.
> Whether I personally use Windows or not has no impact at all on whether
> it is monopoly crapware, no more than millions of other licenses. (None
> of the wintrolls have even noticed that it must be 'pirated' according
> to their lying bullshit, since you could only get Win95b OEM, and I've
> already admitted I bought the system with a Linux preload.) It doesn't
> say anything about Linux, one way or the other, either.
You are a hypocrit. You call Windows monopoly crapware, yet you still
use it.
"lying bullshit" is a typical _posturing_ style of response. A better
way to do it would have been "lies".
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:57:34 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > And BTW 20 years UNIX experience has nothing to do with Linux.
>
> Of all the tripe that I've heard,
>
> "Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
> S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
> Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
>
> utter over the years, that one is by far the most rediculous.
>
> Its Windows that has NOTHING to do with UNIX. Linux
> is a UNIX ****clone*****.
And yet my two or three years experience with Digital UNIX and Ultrix
are ridiculed as irrelevant to Linux. Do I smell a double standard here
in COLA?
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:55:48 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >Telling me I'm lame does not make me lame. [...]
>
> Neither has this, or any of your other posts, provided any evidence to
> the contrary, Pete. See-ya.
Neither this nor any of your posts provides any evidence as to _why_ you
think I'm lame.
That's pretty much what I can expect from you. Lots of playing and
posturing and absolutely zilch in the way of content.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:38:32 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Only because many web pages are designed to be "best viewed with IE".
> Imagine one day they turn to say "This page is best viewed with Adobe
> Acrobat. Please download the free Acrobat Reader <here>.". Now,
> would Windows still seem better? Huh? And you could replace that
> with Ghostscript/ghostview. Haha... :P
Windows has font anti-aliasing, why doesn't any Linux distro have that
by default?
Agreed, there are a lot of pages out there that need IE, but a lot of
them work reasonably well with Konqueror (KDE 2.1). I say reasonably as
there are always a few that don't.
> No, not the built-in VC like VAX. What he means is the *add-on*
> version control provided by CVS or RCS. Linux has no built-in version
> control.
I'm not sure I'd include CVS - it's not the most friendly of version
control packages I've seen. I've not tried RCS. What I'm used to is
CMS/MMS on OpenVMS and SourceSafe from the Great Shaitan.
> >> Linux has dozens of HTML authoring tools.
> Pete> Where?
>
> Does PSGML+Emacs count?
> Does vi count?
> Then, how about "cat > index.html"?
Well, I might as well use NOTEPAD on Windows 2000, then.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 16 May 2001 10:16:13 GMT
On Wed, 16 May 2001 08:57:34 +0100,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> > And BTW 20 years UNIX experience has nothing to do with Linux.
>>
>> Of all the tripe that I've heard,
>>
>> "Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
>> S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
>> Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
>>
>> utter over the years, that one is by far the most rediculous.
>>
>> Its Windows that has NOTHING to do with UNIX. Linux
>> is a UNIX ****clone*****.
>
> And yet my two or three years experience with Digital UNIX and Ultrix
> are ridiculed as irrelevant to Linux. Do I smell a double standard here
> in COLA?
I don't think so, perhaps your just smelling the incredulity of
Linus users who have never suffered the 'problems' you have ?
>
> --
> ---
> Pete Goodwin
> All your no fly zone are belong to us
> My opinions are my own
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Moon Shyne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 05:30:41 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > But the most common vector is not vaginal sex but anal sex, when it
comes to
> > sex.
> >
> > Rich Soyack
>
> Aids is spreading like wild fire in India. Truckers go from village to
> village, fucking people as they go, unknowingly spreading aids. That is a
> fact. That is also the same case as what is happening in Africa.
The main causes to the epidemic-like spread of AIDS in Africa are
a) Shame - people with AIDS are vilified and shunned, and as a result people
who are HIV positive won't even admit it
b) lack of medical care - they simply don't *have* the medicines to treat
the disease
c) lack of funding to pay for available medical care.
Haven't you read anything about how the drug companies are finally agreeing
to cut the cost of available treatments they can send to AIDS victims in
Africa? There was a rather lengthy article not that long ago in Time(?)
magazine.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
>
------------------------------
From: "Moon Shyne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 05:32:38 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ray Fischer wrote:
> >
> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >
> > >> >> >> If you're a man, and your have sex with another man who does
not have
> > >> >> >> AIDS, your chance of getting AIDS is?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >And you know that he's not infected with AIDS how, exactly?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The same way we know that YOU are not infected with AIDS.
> > >> >
> > >> >Since I don't engage in homosexual acts
> > >>
> > >> So you claim. Besides, that's not the only way to get AIDS, nor even
> > >> the most common way of getting the disease.
> > >
> > >You're asking me how *I* know that I don't have AIDS.
> >
> > Learn to read.
>
> I'm way ahead of you, sparky.
>
> Here, let me help you catch up.
>
>
> I have TOTAL knowledge of whether *I* have done anything to get AIDS,
> because I don't do homosexuality, and I don't do drugs.
Those 2 would be true of many people who ended up HIV positive.
>
>
> Meanwhile, you have NO way of truly knowing if your latest gay encounter
> is AIDS-tainted or not...especially when you remember that male
homosexuals
> are THE MOST promiscous group on the planet.
>
>
>
> >
> > >> > and I haven't had a blood transfusion since
> > >> >1973 (if at all -- appendix operation)...
> > >>
> > >> But those $10 hookers...
> > >
> > >False premise #1: that I use hookers
> > >False premise #2: that men can get AIDS from women in normal vaginal
sex.
> >
> > That's how it spreads in most of the world, dimwit. Through
> > heterosexual intercourse.
>
> M to F, not the reverse, moron.
Your ignorance about how HIV can be spread will be your downfall yet.
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also
looks
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
>
>
> --
> 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.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 06:58:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> As for the comment regarding posting anonymous, why? have you got
> something to hide?
nope, this anonymous news server
is just an easy way for me to avoid
getting spam! :-)
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 07:02:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GreyCloud wrote:
> Its obvious why they shutdown... capital venture is drying up!
What I find odd about the shutdown
is that it doesn't take much money to
support a group of 7 programmers,
only about a $1 million per year.
And you only have to pay the star
programmer an amount of $100,000 per
year, the rest can get by on much
less of an income, leaving extra money
for overhead.
Overhead shouldn't be much
money since you don't need office space
but can do everything over the Internet.
About the only capital expense would be
broadband to the home, but most serious
software engineers already have that already.
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:07:21 +0100
I'm bored of all these benchmarks, since benchmarks are just marks and
meaningless out of context. So Win2K served up an extra transcation per
second or Linux manages an extra web page per second? So what?
To get a better idea, you need to look at the real world.
If you look in the real world, you see Linux having several spots in the
top 100 fastest supercomputers. If Win2K/NT is so great and so scalable
and gives such a great price/performance ratio, then why is there not a
*single* Windows cluster in the top 100 supercomputers list?
The reason is simple: Linux scales better, is more efficient and gives a
much better price/performance *in the real world*.
Linux wins, again.
-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
******************************
