Linux-Advocacy Digest #890, Volume #34 Fri, 1 Jun 01 10:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Apache.org, themes.org cracked (Stephen Cornell)
Re: The price of commercial software: MS Clippy (Chris Sherlock)
Re: The price of commercial software: MS Clippy (pip)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the (Rotten168)
Re: Microsoft Helps Turn Britain's E-Government Vision Into Reality (Brian
Langenberger)
Re: Compilers Anyone? Re: INTEL"S ITANIUM DUE OUT TUES !!!!! ("2 + 2")
Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe (chrisv)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Why should an OS cost money? (Nick Condon)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: SourceForge hacked! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: SourceForge hacked! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: SourceForge hacked! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: SourceForge hacked! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: SourceForge hacked! (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Apache.org, themes.org cracked
Date: 01 Jun 2001 13:52:40 +0100
Following the compromise of sourceforge, it seems that apache.org has
been ccracked via a vulnerability in OpenSSH version 2.2.0:
http://www.apache.org/info/20010519-hack.html
Slashdot reports a related defacement of themes.org:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/31/0252211&mode=thread
Judging from http://www.openssh.com/security.html, there is only one
vulnerability in 2.2.0, and this is fixed in 2.3.0 and later.
Before Chad Myers jumps in, this exploit is nothing to do with a
`fundamental flaw' in the SSH protocol, but rather a bug in its
implementation, that was fixed months ago.
It's not very confidence-inspiring that such important open-source
sites don't keep security-critical software up to date.
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 23:16:47 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The price of commercial software: MS Clippy
Oh my gawsh. Animated assistants helping you install an O/S.
To quote Victor Meldrew: "I *don't* BELEIVE it!"
Chris
Anonymous wrote:
>
> One of the things I like about free software
> is that since it is done on a shoestring budget
> in most cases, there isn't time for the superfluous
> junk like MS Clippy that's present in commercial software.
> Just imagine the resources that were put into coming
> up with MS Clippy.
>
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6133676.html
>
> --------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
> Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
> -----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The price of commercial software: MS Clippy
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 14:17:13 +0100
Anonymous wrote:
>
> One of the things I like about free software
> is that since it is done on a shoestring budget
> in most cases, there isn't time for the superfluous
> junk like MS Clippy that's present in commercial software.
> Just imagine the resources that were put into coming
> up with MS Clippy.
>
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6133676.html
http://www.microsoft.com/office/clippy/
Love it! :) And who said Mafi$soft had no sense of humour ?
I think this actually shows that M$ is listening to at least one aspect
of user requests ?
Now where is the link of the claims three nines MTBF of win2k - more
humour anyone ? :)
Other links of humour :
"Study Shows Linux Users Can Go Windows"
http://bbspot.com/News/2001/05/switch.html
old ones are the best:
"Microsoft Purchases Evil From Satan"
http://bbspot.com/News/2000/4/MS_Buys_Evil.html
"Linux Developer Gets Laid"
http://bbspot.com/News/2000/9/linux_laid.html
**And my personal favorite**:
"Linux Kernel Delayed By Microsoft's Army of Evil
Monkeys"
http://bbspot.com/News/2000/5/MS_Linux_delay.html
------------------------------
From: Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 13:21:24 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Rotten168 wrote:
> >
> > drsquare wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 31 May 2001 10:31:46 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > > ("Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Did the geniuses who wrote X consider Trackballs of varying designs when
> > > >> they chose the 'middle button' cut & paste?? Probably not, because it's
> > > >> very unwieldy for me and my Logitech trackball.
> > >
> > > >Did the geniuses who made your track ball build it with X in mind??
> > > >
> > > >Bearing in mind X was there first, the trackball makers seem to be at
> > > >fault.
> > >
> > > Never mind that you can press the left and right buttons at the same
> > > tiem for the same effect...
> >
> > No... that's what's unwieldy about it, pressing both the left and right
> > buttons is too annoying to be used in a practical sense.
> >
> > This whole thing is just another way Linux is failing on the desktop.
>
> Considering that X predates the Logitech trackball by a full decade,
> I suggest you ask Logitech why they are selling a trackball that is
> incompatible with X.
>
> > --
> > - Brent
> >
> > "General Veer, prepare your underpants for ground assault."
> > - Darth Vader
> >
> > http://rotten168.home.att.net
*sigh* Why not ask X why they're still stuck in 1990? Either way, if
Linux wants to remain competitive on the desktop it will have to do
better than this. I read an article a while back on how each OS should
just stick to their respective markets, and we'd all be better. Windows
should stick to the desktop (where it does a better job than Linux), and
UNIXens should stick to servers, workstations, routers, ... all the
industrial-strength stuff.
--
- Brent
"General Veer, prepare your underpants for ground assault."
- Darth Vader
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Helps Turn Britain's E-Government Vision Into Reality
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 13:31:23 +0000 (UTC)
Fred K Ollinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: : Government Gateway, due to issues with the support for digital
: : certificates in this new version. You can find out which version of the
: : browser version you are currently using, by clicking on Help, then
: : About?, in the menu bar of your browser. The name and version number of
: : your browser is displayed."
: Where is the menu bar of my browser? I'm using lynx. Or are these people so
: braindead that they haven't heard of this? Why doesn't Britain use their
: intelligence to make a x-platform browser which you can download and use?
"Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a
Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network."
-Tim Berners-Lee in Technology Review, July 1996
Every time I see news of "browser X required to view page Y",
I can almost hear the web dying piece-by-piece...
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Compilers Anyone? Re: INTEL"S ITANIUM DUE OUT TUES !!!!!
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 09:44:00 -0400
Andrew Shuttlewood wrote in message ...
>on Tue, 29 May 2001 19:53:12 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>cjt & trefoil wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>>I'm not so sure. The VLIW parallelism is at the instruction level, isn't
>>it?
>>>Won't there be a lot of stalls?
>>
>>That's the big question. There's been a lot of work done with compilers.
Yet
>>there is hardly any conceptual material on EPIC/MAJC generation compilers
>>like there is on chips.
>
>There's a group at some random American university (the IMPACT group)
>which has been working on VLIW compilers and so on.
>
>http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/Impact/papers/ftopic.html
>
>They have a couple of papers - jusrt looking through the names, they
>look very interesting
>
>>The whole software execution engine layer (Java VM+ and .NET CLR) also
adds
>>to the mix. Also components useful for third party composition require a
>>knowledge of all dependencies. Captured in the metadata, info on these
>>dependencies can be used by the CLR to dynamically predicate the branches
>>for smooth parallel processing.
>
>Sounds expensive speed-wise.
Of course, the first compilation is done ahead during development. Dynamic
compilation has been shown to be faster in the Dynamo compiler. Why? Because
all the API method calls, etc., are opaque to the static compiler.
See http://arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/dynamo/dynamo-2.html
If there was no necessity of doing predication/branch predition at all, the
anti-VLIW view would have a better argument. A "stall" or interlock on a
deep pipelined superscalar chip causes large inefficiencies.
So the question is where to place this functionality of attempting to find
parallelism by unraveling loops, handling branching, etc., ie in silicon or
software.
Now, in non-VLIW approaches, the compiler takes the sequential source code,
looks for parallelism and generates, guess what, machine level sequential
code, and the superscalar processor has no view to the compiler, so it lays
the code out in OOO scheduling, branch predition registrars, pipelines--all
in a effort to extract the same parallelism that, at least partially, was
tossed by the conventional compiler. As you know, the EPIC VLIW has a
bundles of 3 instruction words and a template bit to try to capture the
parallelism exposed by the compiler's work.
At least when the parallelism extraction is done in software side of the ISA
interface, there can be a feedback to the design of frameworks, etc.
In any case, "conventional" approaches of handling the functionality in
silicon will continue. Whether, in the end, abject failure, some synthesis
or new approach develops is anyone's guess.
2 + 2
>
>Plus the information may not always be true. As in Java, you can't
>generally inline functions unless they're private or final - if
>people code c# like this, it might be quite hard to do the necessary
>agressive amounts of inlining that you would need without generating
>the same code many many times.
>
>>The term VLIW appears to be used in various ways. Sometimes MAJC is
>>described as VLIW-like. Intel's EPIC is actually a better word, and I call
>>it the EPIC generation. Intel is said to have chosen EPIC because of the
>>failure of an earlier generation of VLIW chips. Or you could say the MAJC
>>generation if you are a Java freak.
>
>VLIW simply means Very Long Instruction Word, so yes, it can mean
>many different things. the EPIC designation is perhaps more accurate
>
>I fear that you overestimate how well .NET will run on this sort
>of chip. I think that the architectural need to agressively inline
>functions in order to benefit from the predication may be hurt by
>the nature of the sort of code that people are generating (with
>lots of virtual functions)
>
>I don't deny that .NET and Java and similar runtimes have the possibility
>of gaining an advantage compared to standard compiled approaches, but
>I think that the complexity of having to do this, and the high level
>nature of the languages that most people will use will hurt the
>performance attempts (or alternatively just waste lots of memory by
>having multiple inlined copies of the same function with subtle changes)
>
>Still, it should be interesting - I think that the interesting part has
>only just begun. It'll begin to get really interesting when this hardware
>is on your average persons desk and companies are trying to optimise
>games to run on it.
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 13:43:45 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sorry, but there's many non-literal forms of effective communication.
>> Morons who simply pretend not to understand are not helpful.
>
>Translation: I, chrisv, am unable to communicate in a clear, effective manner.
Translation: I, Aaron Kookis, admit defeat to chrisv AGAIN. As
chrisv is OBVIOUSLY correct.
Tell us again, Kookis, how it's not possible to communicate in a
clear, effective manner without being perfectly literal. LOL!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 13:49:42 GMT
unicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But worse, major manufacturers are beginnning to break ranks. IBM will
> spend a billion dollars beefing up Linux this year, and HP is not far
> behind.
In short, expect AIX, HP-UX, IRIX and other niche Unices to gradually
find their way to whatever pastures aging OSes go to, and the
companies put effort behind Linux to put in whatever enterprise
functionality necessary.
> Sun,
will probably keep Solaris around for a while. They're not in danger
of marginalization for a while. I'm not entirely sure what Compaq
will do, probably let their Unix stuff become marginalized, and push
Linux as an alternative on their PeeCees.
> Microsoft isn't laying still, they are hedging their bets by
> diversifying into hardware.
They will have to be rather brilliant to keep and expand their
dominance. They own most desktops, true enough, but with obnoxious
pricing and control schemes, people are bound to at least look at
alternatives to some degree. And while their home turf is, if not in
imminent danger, then certainly under attack, they find
their other fronts, like
. WinCE vs. embedded Linux, and the existing RTOSes (mostly VxWorks?)
. Xbox vs Sony, Sega and Nintendo
. Windows whatever Advanced whatever Server vs. the above mentioned
Unix crowd, sporting z900s, starfires, galaxies, and superdomes.
are not a given victory, by a long shot.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Subject: Re: Why should an OS cost money?
Date: 1 Jun 2001 13:55:44 GMT
Nick Condon wrote:
>I am constantly amazing ...
heh heh heh.
I am, really :-D
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:25:12 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Process id's are not available in Win95 or Win98, perhaps theyre avail
> in Win2k?
They are if you know where to look for them. They are more accesible in
Windows 2000 as it has a task manager.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:26:27 +0100
In article <zlyR6.47997$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Using xkill. Most window managers map Ctrl+Alt+Esc to run xkill, which
> gives you a skull-and-bones cursor that lets you blow any arbitrary X app
> out of the water, no additional skill required. Much easier than the
> Windows (either 9x or 2K) alternatives.
Yes I've tried that. It certainly kills the window. Unfortunately, it
does not necessarily kill the process behind the window, as I descovered
on a number of occaisons.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:23:46 +0100
In article <9f6lc2$fh6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > So how the hell can you say I snipped inappropriately without a shred of
> > evidence?
>
> I provided evidence many times before in the past. You ignored it then
> and you're ignoring it now. You'll ignore it if I dig up more, so I won't
> bother.
Round and round we go... spinning, forever spinning...
> > I don't believe you.
> >
> > I'm calling you a liar.
>
> Well, I'm calling you a liar because you know perfectly well that you do
> it. You also know perfectly well that I have posted evidence in the past.
I don't know what you're talking about, and you certainly haven't posted
anything in the past. As you're unable to post anything now, you're just
lying.
Still spinning...
> > OK that's enough.
> >
> > You're a liar, plain and simple.
> >
> > You can't post one because none exist.
> >
> > End of story.
> Not quite.
>
> I posted them in the past. They have long expired off my news server and
> it would take me quite a while to fing them again. Since last time you
> ignored the posts and are now lying about the existence of them, I can
> only conclude that it is not worth my time trying to find them.
Oh please! I did not ignore them before, am I not lying about the
existance of them. You are using a circular argument in not posting a
single shred of evidence backing up your claims.
This is the last time I will say - post an example or shut up! The fact
that you haven't even tried to in the last dozen or so posts convinces
me they do not exist and that you're just trying it on.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SourceForge hacked!
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 13:00:03 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> > After all the bleating about IIS, now I see an Apache server has been
> > hacked. SourceForge uses SSH... hmmm...
>
> You misread the article. I looks more like someone was able to find a password
> log on through ssh.
>
> It made NO mention of what was cracked. I highly doubt that it was Apache. I
> suspect someone had a very good guess at an SSH password.
Apparently not.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/19350.html
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SourceForge hacked!
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:58:23 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/19255.html
>
> After all the bleating about IIS, now I see an Apache server has been
> hacked. SourceForge uses SSH... hmmm...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/19350.html
The title of this article is:
"Cowboy cracker nails Apache"
The first paragraph reads:
"The cracker who broke into the Web servers of open source development
site SourceForge has broken cover to boast of his exploits, and brag he
also compromised the systems of the Apache project."
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SourceForge hacked!
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:58:56 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/19255.html
> >
> > After all the bleating about IIS, now I see an Apache server has been
> > hacked. SourceForge uses SSH... hmmm...
>
> Please highlight the passage in the article that says this (please
> quote).
See http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/19350.html
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SourceForge hacked!
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:59:36 +0100
In article <9f06f9$dq0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > After all the bleating about IIS, now I see an Apache server has been
> > hacked. SourceForge uses SSH... hmmm...
>
> Where on earth does it say that an apache server was hacked? Do you understand
> that the sourceforge network contains many more than just webservers?
>
> Apparantly not, you stupid limey.
Both feet firmly planted in mouth, I see.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/19350.html
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SourceForge hacked!
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 13:01:19 +0100
In article <9f2jl8$q8u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > After all the bleating about IIS, now I see an Apache server has been
> > hacked. SourceForge uses SSH... hmmm...
> >
> > I'll have to see if my sources have 'changed' in any way.
>
> This puts the nail in the coffin of any arguments you might come up with
> *against* you being a common troll.
I am not a troll.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/19350.html
Besides, I fail to see how you jump from what I wrote to your unusual
conclusion.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
