Linux-Advocacy Digest #642, Volume #34 Sun, 20 May 01 09:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Win 9x is horrid ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux? (Ed Cogburn)
Re: Can I use GPL? (kosh)
Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Advice needed. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Can I use GPL? (pip)
Re: Can I use GPL? (Paul Colquhoun)
Windows 2000 Service Pack 2 review ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! ("~¿~")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 06:07:32 -0500
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <AOWM6.1267$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Again, MS could send 1 byte of data extra in a TCP header every time you
> > connect to microsoft.com and do the same thing. They do *NOT* need to
do it
> > through activation. It simply makes no sense whey they would choose
this
> > method, and not some other less visible method, *IF* they were going to
do
> > this. Merely using their software is enough.
>
> I cannot believe how naive you are. You think they can just add a byte in
> a tcp header and no one will notice? Some of us do run IDS's which look
> for unusual things like this. Just exactly where in the tcp header are
> they going to put this byte?
There are plenty of implementation defined fields, such as the sequence
number, which could be generated using a method to extract information out
of it.
Even so, would IDS notice if the padding was not 0? Or if the reserved bits
between the Data Offset and Control bits were not 0?
> > Why is that the simple answer? If MS wanted to collect information,
they
> > could build a way into the next security patch for Windows 2000 or ME or
98
> > or whatever. The point is that if you are paranoid enough not to use
WinXP
> > because you think MS is spying on you, you should be paranoid to not
even
> > use their OS in the first place.
>
> No they can't because it will be noticed. You can't fool all the
> people all the time. Why else are they using encryption in XP? If, as
> you have said, they are using an MD5 type hash to identify your system
> then that should be enough. By using registered user name, address,
> timezone, etc I'm sure no two PC's would create the same hash. Therefore
> no need for encryption. I must therefore conclude that they are sending
> other data that they don't want you to know about. Think how valuable it
> would be to have all your web surfing details, mailing lists subscribed
> to, newsgroups you post to, etc.
Why use encryption? So that someone can't spoof the activation process.
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 23:08:13 +1200
> So in order to use Linux you need to be a professional? In order to use
> Windows you don't need to be. It just works.
I wonder how many newbie Windows users can upgrade their OS without any
help?
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux?
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 07:12:36 -0400
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > BTW, MSI doesn't seem to be provided on any version of Windows that I
> > have access to, none of which have _any_ "OS-provided installation
> > technology" at all. But that is just quibbling. You win. MSI is a
> > great technology that Linux doesn't have for "free", using whichever
> > definition of "free" you like. We'll just have to disagree about how
> > important that is.
>
> Yes, it is nice. RPM is _also_ nice, but needs work (if nothing else, why
> can't the *&!*&!! thing seem to handle auto-dependencies? Or did I just
> miss a switch somewhere? :) )
I believe Debian's dpkg can handle autodependancies, or at least apt-get
can do that. apt-get is smart, not perfect yet, but definitely smart.
It can figure out the order in which packages should be installed, and
packages critical to the Debian system such as dpkg are always done
first.
--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. -- Voltaire
------------------------------
From: kosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can I use GPL?
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 05:09:01 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GreyCloud wrote:
> Ivan Popivanov wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I went through a fair amount of material about free software and
>> still, I'm not sure whether I can use GPL or LGPL in the following
>> situation:
>>
>> I have some source code, which I want to make freely available.
>> However, I may like to use this source code in a commercial
>> application. It looks to me that I can't do that if I release the
>> source code under GPL or LGPL. The problem is that most of my c++ code
>> is contained in header files (inline functions) therefore if I apply
>> any of the GNU licenses I will have to release the source code of my
>> application too. I understand that I should made all the changes to
>> the released code available, but I don't want to make my application
>> source code available. Is my understanding of the licenses correct?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Ivan
>
> Take it for what its worth. I purchased GNU Pro Toolkit and Source
> Navigator from Cygnus for $150. It is the egcs c++ compiler that all
> distros use now and no mention of GPL in their license agreement was
> ever made. Even Sun Microsystems sells this stuff at a low price. I
> suspect the primary purpose of GPL is to keep MSs' mitts from
> controlling linux.
>
What compiler you use to compile your code has no affect on the license of
your code.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 06:11:17 -0500
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 19 May 2001 03:52:36 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > Only what MS told any publication or editor... pure spin doctoring.
> >> > > Doesn't take a genius to spot it either.
> >> > > It's MS that is spinning its tales.
> >> >
> >> > Ok, so now The Register isn't smart enough to spot FUD? Any way you
> >spin
> >> > it, you're nailing your favorite publication and will never be able
to
> >use
> >> > it as a reliable source to back up your claims again.
> >>
> >> I don't trust any publication. I view this from a standpoint where MS
> >> is currently standing. They are behind in delivering XP, behind on
> >> delivering an O/S for IA-64.
> >
> >Huh? What does this have to do with the alleged backdoor?
> >
> >In any event, MS is not behind on XP, unless you mean a consumer version
of
> >NT. Hell, when it ships it will be less than 2 years from the release of
> >2000, which is a very short cycle.
>
> If MS had been on time, there wouldn't have been a Windows ME.
Like I said, unless you mean a consumer version of NT. Yes, the consumer
version of NT is quite late, but XP itself, as NT 5.1 is not.
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 23:11:44 +1200
As I remember, our old comrade Jon dropped out of University before he/she
even got a piece of paper.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the blue screen of death,
no body can hear your screams
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Advice needed.
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 12:17:23 +0100
David Kistner wrote:
>
> I need advise.
>
> I am using Microsoft Frontpage 2000, Access 2000 and Visual Basic 6 to
> manage databases and develop/manage multiple database driven websites. I'm
> locked into the Microsoft world at work, but want to escape Microsoft for
> the sites I manage on my own from home. These sites are for non-profit
> groups and frankly I can't afford to keep up with Microsoft's prices for the
> web dev products.
>
> 1. I want to try Linux but am bewildered by the different Linux offerings.
> What Linux O.S. should I try?
I quite like SuSE
>
> 2. What web tool could replace my Frontpage, or is there anything like
> this?
A text editor will lead you to write better HTML
>
> 3. What database could replace my Microsoft Access 2000?
>
For a database server, try MySQL or PostgreSQL or something. The front
end you can write yourself in C/C++ or whatever you feel like or know
> 4. What programming language would you recommend to replace Visual Basic?
>
I think there is a VB clone available now. However, if you're doing a
lot of Web stuff, learn Java.
> Any additional advice would be greatly appreciated. I'm very very
> disillusioned with Microsoft and would like to escape to a better world - I'
> m hoping it's Linux.
Main piece of advice is persistence. Linux is MASSIVELY different to
windows, so it copuld be hard going at first. Once you get past the
initial learning curve though, life is *so* much easier.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 06:14:44 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e5v0u$idd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Yes, they do, or they are not code reviews.
> >
> > Wow, suddenly, reviewing code isn't a code review simply because it
> doesn't
> > review every line in a program. Do you have any idea how long it would
> take
> > to review 35 million lines of code?
>
> Had they got it right the first time, they wouldn't need to review 35
> Million lines of code. Also, they would have programmed more efficiently,
> and it wouldn't have bloated to 35 Million lines of code vs. the 6 or so
> million Solaris 8 04/01 has.
Oh, right. The same can be said about Linux. If Linus had got it right the
first time, we wouldn't need a 2.4 kernel, or a 2.2 kernel or a 2.0 kernel
for that matter.
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 23:19:15 +1200
There is a constant review of code in the UNIX world, compared to the hole
fixing exercise Microsoft undertakes. They (Microsoft) wait until they see
smoke, then do something about it. Linux and UNIX, smoke doesn't even occur
because the problem has been fixed months prior to it even being an issue.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the blue screen of death,
no body can hear your screams
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 23:20:31 +1200
SCO CEO interview prior to the released of Windows 2000. Read that, then
come back.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the blue screen of death,
no body can hear your screams
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can I use GPL?
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 12:28:19 +0100
Ivan Popivanov wrote:
> I have some source code, which I want to make freely available.
> However, I may like to use this source code in a commercial
> application.
You may sell your commercial application and hopefully make very much
money! If you use the GPL you must however provide all the source code
to your end users.
> It looks to me that I can't do that if I release the
> source code under GPL or LGPL. The problem is that most of my c++ code
> is contained in header files (inline functions) therefore if I apply
> any of the GNU licenses I will have to release the source code of my
> application too.
Yes, if you use GPL code then the why you "add" your additions to that
codebase you must also release the code. But ONLY to the users who PAY
you lots of money for it. After all, you DID get all that nice open code
to start with didn't you ?
>I understand that I should made all the changes to
> the released code available, but I don't want to make my application
> source code available.
Well then you'd better re-write all the open and tested code that you
wish to use.
If you choose not to release your source code then you are saying to you
users : "I have used open source code to empower me to create you this
application. Now I wish to bind you and make you beg me for updates and
to fixing any errors that I have added. I also prevent my fellow hacker
from helping me and my users.". Some would call this a stark morale
choice.
Bear in mind that linking to the C library does not mean that you must
release your closed source code.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Subject: Re: Can I use GPL?
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 11:45:05 GMT
On Sun, 20 May 2001 02:40:30 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|Ivan Popivanov wrote:
|>
|> Hi,
|>
|> I went through a fair amount of material about free software and
|> still, I'm not sure whether I can use GPL or LGPL in the following
|> situation:
|>
|> I have some source code, which I want to make freely available.
|> However, I may like to use this source code in a commercial
|> application. It looks to me that I can't do that if I release the
|> source code under GPL or LGPL. The problem is that most of my c++ code
|> is contained in header files (inline functions) therefore if I apply
|> any of the GNU licenses I will have to release the source code of my
|> application too. I understand that I should made all the changes to
|> the released code available, but I don't want to make my application
|> source code available. Is my understanding of the licenses correct?
Yes, if you release code under the GPL or LGPL you do need to make the
source code available.
If the code is entirely your own, you can also license the same code
sepreately under any other license (even closed source) for special
customers.
Releasing the source code is the whole point for licenses like the GPL,
BSDL, etc.
|Take it for what its worth. I purchased GNU Pro Toolkit and Source
|Navigator from Cygnus for $150. It is the egcs c++ compiler that all
|distros use now and no mention of GPL in their license agreement was
|ever made. Even Sun Microsystems sells this stuff at a low price. I
|suspect the primary purpose of GPL is to keep MSs' mitts from
|controlling linux.
Have you looked at all the files in the distribution/CDROM ?
The GPL does not prevent you from selling code, it doesn't even
limit the price. It does require you to provide the source on
request. Have you asked for the source?
I tried to look at their web site, but it just redirects to the
RedHat site now. How long ago did you buy this?
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Windows 2000 Service Pack 2 review
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 23:48:40 +1200
I have been using Windows 2000 over the last couple of days, with the latest
service pack, SP2, installed. I installed Windows 2000 on a clean hard
disk, that is, a hard disk that has been low level formatted. Installation
when very quickly, rebooted, the proceeded to download the latest service
pack update, which was approx. 15400Kilobytes, (aka, 15 megs or so).
Several times it failed, due to high demand on their, Microsofts server's,
so I waited until around 2am, then started the download. It took around 49
minutes, and the installation and configuration went very quickly. One thing
to point out, the latest patch includes all the patches, that is security
patches up to the point SP2 was released.
After installing I rebooted, as it requested. Once Windows 2000 was loaded
to the desktop I then downloaded the latest compatibility updates, Media
Player, and DirectX (8.0a). I then rebooted again, and I reached the
desktop. I then proceeded to install Lotus Smart Suite ME, whilst at the
same time I also copied a collection of mp3's (using the second CD drive) to
my hard disk. The stability has drastically improved over SP1. Disk
defragmenter no longer crashes at the end of defrag'in my drive, which is a
good sign :) Internet stability (which is important to us analogue modem
users) has also increased to something close to what Linux offers. Lotus
slides in perfectly without any compatibility issues. I do however have a
bone of contention, I have found IE 5.5 a wowser of a browser. It is
considerably slower than version 5. Anyone looking at install IE over 5.0,
DON'T, you will regret it. Media Player 7 is a be-arge of an player. So I
have stuck with good old Winamp. Very soon I will be obtaining a copy of
Office 2002 to review, so, as they say, "watch this space".
oh, only funny thing I saw on the winamp page was, "Get Winamp for Mac!"
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the blue screen of death,
no body can hear your screams
------------------------------
From: "~¿~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 12:40:00 GMT
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 19 May 2001 12:58:52 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=terry+porter+linux&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&btnG
> >=Google+Search&meta=site%3Dgroups
> > Relevant Messages for terry porter linux Results 1 - 10 of about
4,330.
> > Search took 0.56 seconds
> >
> Gee I'm a prolific Wintroll baiter arn't I :)
You're one of the best, agreed.
However, I'm not a 'Wintroll' in the true sense of the attribute.
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=flatfish&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&meta=site%3Dgr
> > oups
> > Results 1 - 10 of about 2,800. Search took 0.38 seconds
> >
> > Now then. Who is spending 'their entire lives posting ..." ????
> >
> > Idiot.
>
> Shame shame Uberdummyspitter, I have always posted under 'Terry Porter",
> (my real name), I *never* change my ID.
I'm sure your friends are proud.
( Uberdummyspitter ) good one!
> Now even to a intelectually challenged Wintroll like yourself
> it should be apparent that Flatfish's 2,800 posts would far
> exceed that number when results from a search for :-
>
> "Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
> S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
> Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
>
> were added to the 2,800 above.
>
> Please do your research properly in future, its boring
> waiting for you to get a clue.
While your point may seem valid, in actuality, it's not.
'Flattie' as you call this poster, has indeed posted under many names.
However, as any good LinPert knows, 'Flatfish' has been the consistent
moniker for months now. Given the google archive attrition rate, and the
fact that google reports your posting rate at 35% greater than the
'flatfish' ... one has to question who really spends more time 'trolling'.
Google gives us that answer.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
