Linux-Advocacy Digest #579, Volume #34 Thu, 17 May 01 21:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Win 9x is horrid (GreyCloud)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (GreyCloud)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (GreyCloud)
Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS ("billwg")
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Anecdote: MS' grip loosening (GreyCloud)
Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum: ("Flacco")
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! (GreyCloud)
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st (Terry Porter)
Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum: ("Flacco")
Re: Sea Change (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:35:06 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <yyCM6.1126$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> In article <XlAM6.1104$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> >> In article <WrlM6.1009$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > MS uses encrypted data so that activation can't be spoofed.
> > >> >> > Otherwise, you could simply watch the data, and generate your own
> > >> >> > "activation".
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> >> >> Ok, from c't, issue #9 (23/4-6/5/2001), german edition:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> "Our attempt to use a man-in-the-middle attack to listen in on
> > >> >> >> the HTTPS connection between Windows-XP and Clearing
> > >> >> >> House...failed: not only does XP encrypt the data, but it
> > >> >> >> receives new certificates used for further communication...
> > >> >> >> Extremely questionable is why Microsoft would go to such lengths
> > >> >> >> to simply exchange a few numbers, especially since the numbers
> > >> >> >> are already tied to the PC hardware.
> > >> >> >> ...The amount of data exchanged during activation leaves all
> > >> >> >> possible options open in the light of the complexity of the
> > >> >> >> process: It is possible that aside from the necessary
> > >> >> >> data...other information is exchanged, it is also possible that
> > >> >> >> the bloat in the data traffic is caused by the certificates
> > >> >> >> alone. C't advises not to use the online activation until
> > >> >> >> Microsoft makes the process more transparent. In the meantime
> > >> >> >> you're better off using the telephone."
> > >> >> Yes, Erik,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> But that wasn't the point. Read it again, *please*?
> > >> >
> > >> > I don't see how any other point can be derived from this.
> > >> >
> > >> > It's complaining because the data is encrypted, then wonders why MS
> > >> > goes to such lengths to pass the data. The answer is obvious, and
> > >> > the one I gave.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> Uh no,
> > >>
> > >> Maybe because I have the German text beside me. They are complaining
> > >> that a) MS is sending new certificates, why are they necessary? and b)
> > >> the registration process is sending *too much* data to be the simple
> > >> hash that MS is telling us it should be (they do note that the amount
> > >> of data may be caused by the new certificates).
> > >
> > > Clearly they're sending certificates specific to activation, so that
> > > other certificates can't be used to spoof the activation process. I
> > > don't see the problem.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Now we are getting somewhere. The main beef c't has with the activation
> > process, is that Microsoft does not tell what it does exactly. The amount
> > of traffic is big enough to hide additional data in the activation
> > request, and unless the exact method is known, we only have Microsofts
> > word that that doesn't happen. You may trust them, c't apparently doesn't
> > and they seem to be justified based on past experiences.
>
> If you don't trust them, you shouldn't be using the OS at all, since if they
> wanted to send data, they could do it in any of a million ways without you
> ever being able to detect it. Why would they put such data in a high
> visibility scheme like activation?
I don't trust them and won't use or buy their O/S.
Why not?
Maybe its because MS is getting too bold and brash about it.
>
> The fact of the matter is, if you trust them enough to use the OS at all,
> you trust them enough to activate. There is no more or less danger or risk.
>
> > Clearly the certificates aren't all that necessary if you can just pass
> > along your hardware key over the phone if you choose that method of
> > activation
>
> The phone is much more trustworthy than the Internet, with less of a chance
> for interception of the data. Otherwise, why aren't we using encrypted
> telephone communications?
>
But we do use encrypted telephone comm!
> > Face it Erik, *nobody* trusts Microsoft on their word anymore. Well, you
> > do, obviously, so I'm curious if you can give a reason for that? You seem
> > to be too intelligent to trust anything on faith alone.
>
> I don't trust them in the way you mean, but I can use common sense. Simply
> using the OS gives them the opportunity to do whatever they like. If i'm
> going to do that, there is no extra risk in activation.
So you think.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:44:16 -0700
Jon Johansan wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> > >
> > > All admin can be done through a browser, or if you are using Solaris on
> the
> > > client, use the special Java based admin program. Whats so hard about
> that?
> > > nothing. Aaron, also consider that Jan is a mear office clerk who uses
> Word and
> > > Windows, and because she can install Windows from scratch that somehow
> makes her
> > > an admin.
> >
> > I thought Jan Johanson was a man <grin>:
> >
> > http://www.kretsloop.se/ftg/ecomitech/janj-e.html
>
> hardly! Jan not Jon.
>
> (all W2K admin can be done through a browser too)
Happy Syttende Mai!
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:46:26 -0700
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> > It seems that Cal. isn't the only state having troubles with black outs.
> > We're starting to see some server farms drop off the net for a while
> > because the server farms aren't being told a rolling black out is
> > coming.
> >
> > --
> > V
>
> Why not build more power plants? New Zealand is already building two more power
> plants to handle the ever increasing demand. 70-80% of power is from hydro, and the
> rest is from Geothermal, Coal, and Gas fired plants. Up at the garbage dump there
> is a small power plant running off the methane produced from the rubbish dump, so,
> maybe California should setup one of those outside Microsoft to capture all the crap
> that they produced.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
Power Plants?? We can't because all the environmentalists won't allow
it. They don't like logging either. Sure hope they don't miss their
toilet paper.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "billwg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 00:49:35 GMT
"Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Nope, that's not how it works at all. Each application uses a GUI toolkit,
and
> will require the libraries for that toolkit. Provided you have the
required
> libraries you can run any application under any window manager. I've
started
> using KDE2.02 now, but still occasionally use BlackBox (a very minimal and
> fast window manager) and all Linux applications will run under either.
>
Are all the interfaces, "APIs(?)", used by the various GUIs syntactically
identical then? Are the differences between them cosmetic only? That just
doesn't seem right to me. In Windows, there are periodic additions made to
the GUI capabilities in the form of new controls and/or changed behaviors.
To take advantage of them, the source code has to change, sometimes
significantly. How can Linux avoid that? Windows has a "toolkit" or SDK as
well, but it evolves. How is it that doesn't happen with Linux?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 00:50:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Marion wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> And he's still wrong. The HP-9000 is still running under PA-RISC, not IA64.
>
>Yep, you're right. HP will be moving toward IA-64 when it's out though.
>
>--
>Mike Marion-Unix SysAdmin/Senior Engineer-Qualcomm-http://www.miguelito.org
>"Because right now, developing software for Microsoft is like brushing the
>teeth of a Great White Shark with a piece of raw steak." - Robert G. Brown,
>Linux Today; Nov 13th, 1998
If you mean about October of last year you'd be on the mark.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anecdote: MS' grip loosening
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:57:30 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 May 2001 02:30:23 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 16 May 2001 02:24:32 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Why are you downloading that shit at work?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Doesn't matter WHERE it was downloaded. Tivoli is spyware that allows
> >> your company to know exactly what is on your system no matter where it
> >> came from.
> >
> >Why are you downloading that shit onto company equipment?
>
> I don't have any company equipment, I am self employed.
>
> Point is Tivoli is spyware.
>
> flatfish
What is Tivoli??
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum:
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 00:58:06 GMT
> What is keeping Linux off the desktop is ignorance and arrogance rolled
> up into a little ball called, "Linux is too hard!" + "Why should I learn
> how to use it?". You hear users bitch and moan, but when a replacement
> comes along, they make excuses, even though all they do it write a
> letter to Aunt Dolly and email some crap to work. Something Linux is
> more than capable of doing.
You're not helping that user choose Linux by calling him "ignorant" and
"arrogant". Quite the opposite, really.
If it gets your rocks off to stroke yourself in the advocacy forum, great,
enjoy yourself.
Just do so with the knowledge that your attitude actually hurts Linux.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 18:01:01 -0700
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> > Charlies been claiming for the last year that HP is selling Itanium's in
> > HP-9000's, and that Intel is in some kind of secret conspiracy with MS to
> > delay the Itanium until Windows can support it.
> >
> > He's clearly whacked.
>
> Not "whacked", just missinformed. Intel doesn't need to wait, it already as
> AIX, Solaris and HP-UX on board, so why would they wait for Windows? they
> don't, and if you have kept a close eye on Intel, they have been urging
> UNIX vendors to port their OS accross to the Itanium chip. Hence, Intel only
> has the strong alliance with Microsoft in the desktop, but not in the server
> space.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
And , the Linux community has already ported Linux to the Itanium...
they are waiting for Intel to get its act together. MS doesn't have
their O/S ready yet for the Itanium.
Some of the archetectural types don't agree on the way Intel has done
the Itanium.
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 18 May 2001 01:00:47 GMT
On Thu, 17 May 2001 23:53:16 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>My poor friend, you don't need a better computer, you need a better OS.
>>My Linux box (a P133/72M) can easily handel 8x writes from my CDRW and
>>that's without a reboot before hand.
>
> Well, that's why I'm preparing to get Linux together. I'm just one of
> those people who has to get a better idea about something before he
> changes. (I've just been reading everything I can find and asking
> questions for now.)
>
> Even with Linux, one of the apps I wanted was Sun's Star Office (so I
> never needed MS office again) which claims a minimum requirement of a
> 233mHz processor. Are you able to run it on your machine? I might be
> able to, but I"m worried it might be lagged too much.
>
I have a Cyrix686/233 over clocked to 300, with 128 meg of ram,
a IDE Ricoh 'RW7083A' CD burner, and I burnt my first audio CD
the other day. It didn't work on our 3 in 1 cd/radio/tapeplayer
but worked fine on a automotive CD player, and on my pc's 2nd
CDplayer (sony 24x read only).
I'm running Mandrake7.2 from a magazine cd which cost $16.
The burner burns data cd at 8x, with 603mb taking 9minutes and
30 seconds.
Here are the CLI commands to burn a audio cd under Linux.
To convert the tracks on a audio cd to wav's:-
[root@gronk /cdrec]# cdda2wav -v255 -D0,0 -B -0wav
To burn the wav's onto a CD in audio format:-
[root@gronk /cdrec]# cdrecord -v dev=0,0 -dao -useinfo *.wav
> And I think the main problem with my burner is it's parralel port. I
> can only get 1x for burning audio CD's. Is your's parralel, scsi,
> internal? And do you get 8x on audio CDs or just data CD's?
>
> I'll tell you what, though. Never have I found people more willing to
> help a newbie out then in the world of linux. I'm learning a lot.
And the good bit is, ... you've only just begun, the learning that comes
with Linux, is totally enjoyable to some of us:)
--
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: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum:
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 01:07:26 GMT
> *cough* Many end users are lazy. This attitude leaves them without the
> skills to perform BASIC tasks making them appear Stupid. ( REM: A moron
> is a feeble minded person )
>
> BTW this also translates DIRECTLY to the Windows community, there are
> multitudes of ignorant Windows users out there. People are ignorant by
> CHOICE!
>
> If you've ever done help desk type work, you can easily spot the
> difference between someone who has made a modocum of effort to
> understand their environment, compared to the TV cabbages that whine
> about how *unreliable* computers are.
>
> I mean if your using a computer for day to day work and call up a Help
> Desk you should at least know the following terms, i.e. have a *general*
> understanding of what they mean when someone talks to you about them.
> E.g. is your operating system Win98 or 95? Is your computer networked?
> Is the modem internal or external?
>
> Operating System
> Desk Top
> Application
> Icon
> Network
> Modem
> Screen Resolution
>
> Give a man a fish you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish...
Pure arrogant bullshit. There is no reason to expect a man to fish for
his dinner if he's a blacksmith. That's what fishermen are for.
There is no reason for an end-user to know how his or her computer works.
Believe it or not, some people actually use computers to perform work
that is not computer-related at all. If the Linux community fails to
understand this and does not give the user the simplicity and
transparency he wants and expects, you can kiss the desktop market
goodbye.
if it makes you feel superior to know this while others do not, good for
you - but don't pretend like you're advancing the cause of Linux while
you're at it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Sea Change
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 01:08:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Martinet wrote:
>I don't use Linux as a desktop environment. I am a programmer and a
>serious propellorhead, but I have not been able to successfully
>configure my Redhat 6.1 distro to function as a decent windowing
>environment. I could if I had to, I'm sure. But I use Win95 and I have
>Office 97 and these provide all the functionality I need on the
>desktop. I just don't feel like taking the time to hammer on Linux to
>get it to do all the things that W95/O97 does.
>
I assume properllorhead refers to video games.
>(Actually, I rarely use Office on my personal machine. On the company
>laptop, I use it for work-related tasks, but personally I mainly
>use it for my resume. I use VI for my journal and my other 'creative'
>writings, and I use Netscape - with help from fetchmail - for email)
>
>But that's the point.
>
>When I got high-speed internet access, I needed some way to share the
>connection. At the time, I could have spent hundreds of dollars on NT,
>or I could have bought a router/switch for about $150. What I did was
>stick a P-90 Linux box on the connection with two NICs, upgrade the
>kernel and then compile in and configure ip masquerading/forwarding.
>
>As the price of Microsoft products continues to escalate, and the
>licensing becomes more restrictive, I can see these kinds of 'back
>office' solutions becoming more prevalent, especially in small
>businesses. I see nothing wrong with having 25 to 100 users in an
>office using Windows desktops with all their
>internet/database/file-sharing support provided by Linux servers in the
>back room.
>
>I can see this happening. And I can see a lot of money being made by
>the Linux-aware in setting up and maintaining little installations such
>as this. With a single set of disks, you could go around and replace
>all that expensive MS server software in little mom-and-pop shops, and
>things would just keep on ticking.
>
>Actually, I really expect this to happen. Windows 2000 Server with a
>25-seat license is about $4000US. A $50 Linux distro can provide all
>the same services, and the number of seats is limited only by hardware
>limitations. The $3950 savings could be used to hire me (or someone
>with same skills) to install and customize the installation with plenty
>to spare.
>
>
>MjM
Humm. subject titled sea change, that's a strange title for such
an article.
Well, reality has shown me that your comments are true! It's more
than just comments, it's what's happening today.
I find these things out when I go to my bookstores on the weekend
and sit in the pit's reading GNU books. People come up to me
as they feel the need to tell me about their linuxfied offices.
2 weeks ago, a guy came up to me out of the blue and started
hammering me about Linux as I was reading a GNU book. He told
me they had 12 servers in his small business and they replaced
them all with RedHat. He said one was Xenix, 5-6 were novel,
and the rest were NT servers. Then he went on to tell me
that all his desktops were replaced with RedHat also. I asked
what he was using for a Word Processor and spreadsheet and
he said Word 2000 Office.
And it's been just one guy after another for the last 6 months.
The shops are all under 100 people. Small shops varying from
an Attorney's firm to somebody selling siding.
The AIRFARCE folks have told me they ordered 136 RedHat equipped
servers from a contractor. They are throwing out all the W2k
servers for security reasons.
And of the BIG BUSINESS'S? Well, there still acting like
meatheads. They don't want anything to experiment with.
It's either fear of loosing political power or funding or
perhaps even cash under the table. That's what keeps them
from moving.
I think back to when I was younger and I was in a mainframe
only environment in a defense contractor. We made parts
for missles and also phone company parts. There were
people in their 40's just like I am today who were trying
to get Windows and Microsoft pushed into the offices and
get away from the mainframes as small business's were starting
to use it and having some sucess.
It was the small business which got it all started then.
And it's the small business which is getting it started this
time. Microsoft has become as useless and bloated as all
those Mainframe contractors they replaced 20 years ago.
They've also become criminal and dangerous. People don't
remember that MS didn't get it's start in business. It
got it's roots in the home computer really. And when
MS started there was no such thing as a civilian availability
for the internet. Networking wasn't known at all to MS.
They had no concept of security either. The small PC OS
didn't need serious mainframe like security.
The INTERNET is like a woman who's just had sex with 1,000,000
men. And like the MS of 20 years ago, the MS of today still
isn't wearing it's body condom.
The twist is now you can get sued for playing the game.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
