Linux-Advocacy Digest #589, Volume #34 Fri, 18 May 01 05:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!!
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 03:38:26 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > If it's old news then Charlies right... you've been spreading FUD
for
> > > > > quite a while now.
> > > > > But charlie has already provided you Trolls the correctly dated
> > articles
> > > > > ... and you still can't read.
> > > >
> > > > No, apparently Yahoo fucked up an reposted an old article as new.
If
> > you
> > > > notice, the article does not appear on the front page.
> > > >
> > > > This *IS* the > 1 year old vulnerability, and it wasn't a backdoor,
> > despite
> > > > MS originally thinking it was. They later retracted it saying that
the
> > > > message was not a password at all, but simply embedded into the code
> > while a
> > > > buffer overrun vulnerability did in fact exist.
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo is the *ONLY* news service that has this story, and guess
what?
> > It's
> > > > disappeared. It no longer is on the link. You'd think someone,
even
> > the
> > > > register would have picked this up. But they didn't. In fact, the
> > register
> > > > posted a story about how Yahoo fucked up.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/18975.html
> > >
> > > Then ya better tell that to Sun Microsystems then. They say its a new
> > > one!
> >
> > They do? I can't find the link. Please provide it.
> >
> > This is not the double decode bug that was recently discovered.
> >
> > Further, how much evidence does it take? Now you won't even believe the
> > register, the place so many of you Linux advocates love to use as your
> > source of information.
>
> I've read all of the previous links you have provided. It looks to me
> nothing more the MS spin doctoring.
So now "The Register" is a MS puppet publication? What a riot.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:27:54 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >> >
> > > 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]
> > >
> Explain how this reduces spam. Don't get it.
This is actually reasonable, strangely enough.
Those are the links to the abuse departments of the major ISPs/Mailing
systems in the US.
Most of the spam reach from those adresses. By spamming those adress, the
spammer basically send its ISP a notice "I'm spamming, close my account".
Since most spam to email is automatically gathered, it might actually work.
Now I've to go somewhere and have a lie down because I justified Kulkis.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:39:15 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e1mcg$lor$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> I don't believe there is any completely portable way of doing OS
> >> dependent stuff between such vastly differing OSs short of using Java
> >> or a really cool toolkit.
> >
> > Sure there is. Memory management and file I/O are done like this all the
> > time. And they are just as different.
>
> Can't you use malloc/free and stdio?
Yes, and they hide the way the platform handle memory management or file
I/O.
That was my point.
> > You just need to standartise on
> > some libraries. GUI is the real killer, I admit. But it shouldn't be
> > too
>
> Even if there was a toolkit which worked on the Mac, windows and UNIX,
> there would still be design issues due to mice having less than the one
> true number of buttons (3).
Actually, that isn't neccecary. Your application gets a message, and send it
to the appropriate routine.
It doesn't have to be LEFT_MOUSE_CLICK, you can probably create a set of
messages where you translate this kind of stuff (right click to
command+click in mac, and alt+shift+three right click and one left click in
Linux :-D ) without needing to know about how they are implemented.
> > hard to write cross platform API for networking. The problem with
> > threading is that you *need* to know what the threading model that is
> > used is, otherwise you can run into serious bad stuff.
>
> True, although cygwin must make UNIX/Windows portability much easier (but
> I don't know how much it costs commercially).
Part of the FAQ:
Yes. Parts are GNU software (gcc, gas, ld, etc...), parts are covered by the
standard X11 license, some of it is public domain, some of it was written by
Cygnus and placed under the GPL. None of it is shareware. You don't have to
pay anyone to use it but you should be sure to read the copyright section of
the FAQ more more information on how the GNU General Public License may
affect your use of these tools.
In particular, if you intend to port a proprietary (non-GPL'd) application
using Cygwin, you will need the proprietary-use license for the Cygwin
library. This is available for purchase; please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] for
more information. All other questions should be sent to the project mailing
list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:41:57 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e1mjh$lor$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Windows comes with WSH, which come with VBS & JS support. You can add
> > Perl & Python from activestate.com (free). C#, VB.NET comes with .NET
> > beta, and there are also other languages that you can hook there, I
> > believe.
>
> Sounds better than it was, though with UNIX, you can use an arbitrary
> executable as the interpreter.
You can do the same in Windows, what is your point?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[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: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:43:33 +0200
"Chris Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e22cu$lpq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <sTQM6.27495$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >> > It's because the software they want to run, runs on Windows. Only.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Because m$ stole the market.
> >
> > That's "earned the market". please. :D
> >
> >> > Except for MS Office, which runs on Macs too. But that's not enough
> >> > by itself, as I'm sure you realize.
> >> >
> >> > MS Windows won the hearts and minds of the developers of desktop
> >> > applications.
> >>
> >> m$ didnt win ANY developer's hearts. Developers HATE micro$oft because
> >> they know if they market something that catches m$'s eye, m$ will take
> >> it.
> >
> > Not at all. Developers just keep on flocking to Microsoft's banner, when
> > MS is the best solution.
> >
> > Sure, they know that MS might try to buy them out if they are successful
> > enough. They *like* that, it means MS drives up with a dump truck full
> > of money.
> >
> > They also know that if for some reason MS can't or won't do that, they
> > can still compete with Microsoft and *win*. Others have; MS doesn't have
> > black magic.
> >
> > The anti-MS zealotry you see from developers is pretty much the
> > exclusive province of the he open source community. That is still pretty
> > small potatoes, all told.
>
> Yeah . That's why you and so many Microsoft .net lapdogs are so eager try
> and sucker the open source community in supporting C# and the rest of
> Microsoft's crap. To bad for the most part it isn't really working.
Um, AFAIK, the only non-GPL IDE for C# is VS.NET
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 03:45:36 -0500
"Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > COM was a great boon for developers, able to share compiled bits
of
> > code
> > > > > > written in different languages, and allowing apps to communicate
> > with
> > > > each
> > > > > > other easily. On linux, CORBA has barely taken off in the
ActiveX
> > > > emulation
> > > > > > project (Gnome) 5 years behind microsoft. On the microsoft
> > platform,
> > > > COM
> > > > > > and ActiveX are being tossed into the legacy bin as the common
> > language
> > > > > > runtime is being rolled out. The common language runtime (and
MSIL
> > > > > > instruction set) is a huge boon for developers and users and an
open
> > > > > > standard (ECMA). COM, CORBA, and ActiveX are all junk compared
to
> > the
> > > > > > common language runtime. The user experience and developer
> > experience
> > > > will
> > > > > > be so much better with the common language runtime (part of .net
on
> > the
> > > > > > windows platform).
> > > > >
> > > > > Linux developers aren't stupid enough to try to copy COM. At least
I
> > > > > hope not.
> > > >
> > > > Funny you should say that. Mozilla heavily uses a COM clone they
call
> > XPCOM
> > > > (cross platform COM i guess), and IIRC Bonobo is also based on COM's
> > design
> > > > as well.
> > > >
> > > Anyone have links to explain the similarities/differences between MS
COM
> > > and XPCOM? XPCOM can't be a direct clone of MS COM. That won't work
> > > under Linux except for root. XPCOM would have to be more similar to
DSOM
> > > or the Java model.
> >
> > Huh? Why wouldn't a clone of COM work under a normal user? There is no
> > reason why it wouldn't.
> To install shared objects on a system the application has to have root
> privilages. Not a good idea. But you can use a subset of COM that would
> work on a per user basis. But you can't separate that out under MS.
> XPCOM could be such a limited subset. I don't know.
Each user has their own registry hive. Generally shared objects are
installed in the HKLM hive, but if the user has no permission to modify that
hive, then it can install them to the users own hive.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 03:47:22 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > In article <9dtp1l$eeb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Todd"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > What part of "Importing is not Embedding" don't you undersrtand?
> > > >> Embedding
> > > >>> > is Embedding the entire original document *IN IT'S ORIGINAL
FORM*
> > > >>> > within another document, then maintaining that that embedded
> > document
> > > >>> > *WITH
> > > >> IT'S
> > > >>> > ORIGINAL PROGRAM* without exporting it first.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Commonly called, "insert"
> > > >>
> > > >> Your just pretending not to understand. If you really don't
understand
> > > >> the power of COM, please get a clue.
> > > >>
> > > >> Linux *CAN NOT* "embed" documents... this is TOTALLY different than
> > > >> importing data or whatever you call it.
> > > >>
> > > >> You look silly trying to imply Linux can do this when it can NOT
and
> > > >> Windows CAN. Now what part of this don't you understand ?
> > > >>
> > > >> -Todd
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> Matthew Gardiner
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > > Yep,
> > > >
> > > > Did it yesterday with StarOffice 5.2. Created a spreadsheet, saved
it,
> > > > *embedded* it in a text document, double-click, and *voila* StarCalc
> > lets
> > > > me edit the spreadsheet in place.
> > > > Bonobo adds the same technology to the Gnome desktop, there are
> > > > unfortunately not a lot of programs that use it yet. And to make you
MS
> > > > advocates happy, Bonobo is inspired by COM, so evidently Microsoft
*can*
> > > > come up with good ideas.
> > >
> > > Applixware also does this. I have an embedded spreadsheet in a
graphics
> > > document. Any changes I make to the screadsheet are reflected in the
> > > grahpics document.
> >
> > That's not embedding. That's linking.
>
> How would you know? You don't even have a running Linux system with
> StarOffice 5.2.
I do have a running Linux system, Mandrake 7.2, but you're right,
star-office is not installed, neither is X, so it's beside the point.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:47:57 +0200
"Paul Colquhoun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 18 May 2001 00:49:35 GMT, billwg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> |"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?
>
>
> Do these additions stop old programs from working? They don't under Linux.
They don't, of course.
You get additional APIs or changes that doesn't break applications (like the
new UI in Whistler).
> Layer 1 does not need to be on the same machine as all the other layers,
> which is why X applications can be run remotely with no special coding
needed.
You forgot the xlib layer.
As a side point, how does Windows manage remote display?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 19:12:28 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [x-posted]
> >
> > I liked your analysis of the article, but then again, I am biased. Since
> > the serious Windows advocated don't hang around in COLA, I took the
> > liberty to cross-post this to COMNA. This is not ment as food for
> > trolls, just an attempt to trigger some real advocacy from both camps.
>
> Okay, I'll bite.
>
> > Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >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 have to agree about that, even Linux has its 9x, Corel Linux.
True :)
> > >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).
>
> That depend on how they count those distributions.
> www.linuxiso.org list 21 distributions.
> If they count distribution per platform (RH for x86, RH for PPC, RH for
> Alpha, etc), that pretty much explain the number. :-)
That is a good point, you could count it this way. I think that it is
more useful to see them as the same distribution just on different
computers. But I see what you mean.
> > >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.
>
> What about binary distributed software? That is pretty much a big problem,
> because some dist has different FS layout, and (at least AFAIK, there is no
> (standard) way to find about this layout).
> As for "incredibly portable as standard libraries are used", that is *pure
> bull*, if I use standard libraries, I can port code from windows to linux to
> unix to VMS to Mac to whatever you want, as long as it support the standard
> libraries (I mainly talk about C/C++ standard libraries, are you talking
> about something else?).
Hey, I'm all for that! But I'm not talking about the STL, I'm talking
about the standard code libraries that Linux uses. Think of them as
dll's and maybe you will see what I mean :) e.g. glibc
> There is a limit to how much you can do with those standard libraries,
> before you hit performance & usability limits. (Usability means that you
> just *can't* do some stuff using the standard libraries. Threading, GUI &
> networking, to name a few.)
Yeah, point taken. However, as Linux distributions use the same kernel
and pretty much the same base libraries, this isn't too much of an
issue.
> > ><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?
>
> You don't, I never understood this statement.
> s/Developers/Hackers
> I understand, but not the way this is now.
>
> > > What about the number of IIS holes that have needed to
> > >be patched - even recently!
>
> That is not fair, want to go over the list of Linux's programs that need
> patching?
You misunderstand me. I didn't mean for that to come out like that...
hopefully you could see that when I said "Microsoft are fairly fast at
releasing these [patches]" below. The point I was trying to make is that
Microsoft seem to think that they are more secure only because they are
closed source. Clearly this is not the case. I can see how it may have
seemed a pretty unbalanced comment, and I hope this clarifies this
point.
> > >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.
>
> I don't think they said that. They might have *meant* to say that, but they
> most certainly didn't say that.
I'm not so sure. I think that they did mean to say this.
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:01:51 +0200
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e2mhp$h1p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote in message <9due41$du6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> You are correct about the solutions contest. But a similar principle
> applies, even for companies that have the money available. They still
have
> to justify the costs (although they will be less, since the hardware is
> cost-price, and the big groups already have the appropirate memberships).
> And ultimately, they are interested in their own bottom line - if they
make
> more profit selling bigger machines with more expensive software, then
that
> is what they will push for in the benchmarks. It is a lot easier to
profit
> from a 40% cut on a $300,000 software package than from 40% of a $79
> package. Lower end hardware and cheap / free software with lower absolute
> numbers are not nearly as glamerous, even if they can produce far better
> bangs per buck figures. There is also the question of who they are
> targetting with the benchmark "advertising" - there are plenty of
potential
> customers who are used to paying hundreds of thousands for large software
> systems, and just will not consider a free system regardless of any
> performance figures.
Okay, I've to ask, where does the profit goes from software in those
situations?
If IBM sells MS-SQL Server, does it get something, and if so, how much?
I know that OEM buy Windows licenses from MS, and then sell it to the
customer, is it the same with this kind of stuff?
> Regarding the SGI solution, they have clearly aimed for top marks
regardless
> of cost. If they had tried PostGres and DB2 and found that DB2 was 2%
> faster (the figures here are entirely hypothetical), they would use DB2
> regardless of the price.
The cost of software here is (usually, except for DB licenses, which can get
expensive *real* fast, not to mention a nightmare to manage.) usually
miniscule compare to the cost of the hardware.
In this case, 2%, or even 20%, wouldn't have make a difference, it would've
still put Linux at the top of the table, and at much lower price (DB cost is
free in this case).
As I said, in order to even *wish* to get into the table, you've to invest
some *hefty* sums in hardware. And hardware is where most of the profit of
those companies come from, well, that and support contracts.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
