Re: RHN ISO's and IE6

[Edward C. Bailey]

> "Jim" == Jim Bija <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
Jim> I will be sending an email or 2 off to the RHN people and ask them to
Jim> look into and see what they say.

Have you contacted the RHN team?  If not, I urge you to do so...

Ed
-- 
Ed BaileyRed Hat, Inc.  http://www.redhat.com/



___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RHN ISO's and IE6

[Jim Bija]

Im happy to say that linuxiso.org now has all of RHL beta now a days. I also
found a mirror that i get 400k a sec+, i get around 250 from RHN.
My concern is for people who are paying 60$ a year so they can get the ISO's
faster. I would think this would be considered part of the RHN service,
atleast ive seen it advertised as part of the perks of paying. Well, this
part of the RHN is broken. Plain and simple. No FTP client will fix this
break, and its up to the RHN people to fix it. As stated in this thread most
people on the internet are browsing with IE. All these people can not
download the ISO's that they are infact paying for unless they install
another browser, which i think is ridiculous.

This whole thread kind of went astray and got out of hand i think with more
flames then my last bon fire. I figured my post would come to the attention
of a RHN admin or web dev guy somewhere and perhaps the problem would be
investigated. I will be sending an email or 2 off to the RHN people and ask
them to look into and see what they say. Perhaps in the future IE users will
be able to download ISO's via RHN's  https pages, or perhaps they will be
forced to go Netscape or maybe other browsers or just use mirrors.

More then anything else i just wanted to know what the bug was with IE and
that web page. I HATE knowing something is broken, and not knowing how its
broke, and how to fix it if it happens to me.

Jim.

- Original Message -
From: "Ashley M. Kirchner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: RHN ISO's and IE6


> Jim Bija wrote:
>
> > Im not talking about ftp.redhat.com. Im talking about rhn.redhat.com
where
> > you can download the ISO's via https. Well, you cant with IE but can
with
> > lynx and Netscape.. Which what started this whole thread that you didnt
read
> > any of.
>
> No, I did read it, and my opinion, just like many others, is that
people
> need to use the right tools for the right application.  Get a real FTP
program
> (and consequently stop wasting your time trying to get them through
https).
> This whole thread is a moot point if you were using FTP.  I never bothered
with
> downloading my ISO's through RHN.  It's easier, and many times lots faster
going
> through an FTP mirror and the result is the same.
>
> --
> W | I haven't lost my mind; it's backed up on tape somewhere.
>   +
>   Ashley M. Kirchner <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   .   303.442.6410 x130
>   IT Director / SysAdmin / WebSmith . 800.441.3873 x130
>   Photo Craft Laboratories, Inc.. 3550 Arapahoe Ave. #6
>   http://www.pcraft.com . .  ..   Boulder, CO 80303, U.S.A.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Redhat-list mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list



___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Secure ftp (was Re: RHN ISO's and IE6)

[Ed Wilts]

>  Yes, I know, putty isn't a
> secure ftp client. But it gets me in securely and it works. I could have
> easily used others like ws_ftp or something. But the point is, IE (at
> least through 5.5 and I'd be surprised if 6 was any better) sometimes
> has trouble with ftp. Anonymous or secure.

Since I've spent a lot of hours recently looking at secure ftp options, I
thought I'd take this opportuntiy to change the thread and cover this
instead of MS/IE bashing (which may be valid but isn't really relevant to
redhat-list).

Secure ftp is actually documented in an RFC (whose number escapes me right),
and is unfortunately a moving target.  The standard started with AUTH SSL
protocol commands, but they've seen gone away and aren't recommended.
ws_ftp, which you referenced, does not comply with the current version of
the standard - it uses deprecated features like AUTH SSL.  The current
standard is ftp/tls and ws_ftp hasn't even committed to supporting it yet,
let alone have it scheduled for a future release.  Red Hat, AFAIK, does not
ship *any* secure ftp clients in 7.2.   wu-ftpd in rawhide does support
secure ftp transfers.  I'm trying to convince Red Hat that ckermit should
ship as part of the standard distribution - it supports connection over ssh,
ftp/tls, telnet, serial lines, has all the good old scripting we all know
and love, and just plain works for just about everything.

The sad part is that with all the work being done on secure ftp clients and
servers, they're very unfriendly to firewalls and even with both ends
working, you may get blocked by your firewall.

Now that I've rambled on again, I believe you probably meant authenticated
ftp, not secure ftp - ie, pass a username/password to the browser.  For
authenticated ftp, IE sucks. It flat out sucks.  Badly.  It barely works,
keeps your password in clear text in your history, doesn't allow you to
upload at all, and should not even ship in its current state.

Ed Wilts
Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RHN ISO's and IE6

[ABrady]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:56:49 -0600
Ed Wilts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quietly intimated:

> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 04:22:15AM -0600, ABrady wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 01:42:42 -0500 (EST)
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quietly intimated:
> > 
> > > "Not off hand. But I can guarantee a little research can turn it
> > > up."
> 
> I'm going to interject in a few places because I did the challenge on
> IE and standards and your overall (from my point of view) MS-bashing.
> 
> The reason I made the request is because I felt you wouldn't be able
> to back it up, especially the comment that it was intentionally broken
> to further IE dominance and it was not a bug.  A recent eWeek article
> (March 18) covered an interoperability issue between IE and Apache. 
> I'll quote "After eWeek Labs alerted Microsoft to the discover, a
> Microsoft spokesman state that the company has identified the issue
> and will work on a fix."  I don't know if this is the same issue that
> started this thread, but does show that Microsoft can acknowledge
> interopability issues and that they're not always evil.
> 
> In a continuance of your MS rant, you claimed (I'm paraphrasing since
> I deleted the earlier article) "want proof?  see the Sun lawsuit". 
> This lawsuit hasn't even gone to trial yet.  Anybody can sue, and a
> lot of people do, without merit.  The merit has *NOT* been proven just
> because Sun is crying foul.

Searched google, keywords "sun" "settle" "microsoft"

Hit number 1:

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-251401.html?legacy=cnet

Hit number 2:

http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2001-01/sunflash.20010123.1.html

Hit number 3:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2001/jan01/01-23sunpr.asp

I could go on. The search cmae up with 10 pages displayed, maybe more.
Granted, not all are about the subject, but the first 3 should tell you
something.

You are talking about another suit. That hasn't been to court. In that
one Sun claims MS is intentionally crippling XP vis a vis Java. That
hasn't been to court. But, I'm confident that in the end it will result
in another settlement or a finding of guilt.

> > The specific question was, how could I be sure MS was deliberately
> > making the browser less than functional rather than just messing it
> > up by accident? My reply was the "history" part. 
> 
> Which is a totally bogus response.  History does not project the
> future.  If this were the case, we'd all be millionares on the stock
> market.  We've all done some stupid or wrong things in the past - it
> doesn't mean we're bad or wrong people now.

I have the email. I'll paraphrase myself here.

MS has a policy known as "embrace and extend." A more apt description
would be "embrace and steal." They've done this numerous times
throughout their history. In most instances, this means taking someone's
ideas, changing them a little bit, push the product cheap or free, begin
cornering the market, keep changing the standards enough that the
original owner has to spend a fortune to catch up, force the original
owner to drop out of business or drop the product.

The most famous case was with Stac Electronics, in which Microsoft stole
the technology from a small company that dealt with disk compression.
They were sued and lost. Byt the time it was over, Stac didn't have any
of the original business left:

keywords: stacker microsoft

http://www.base.com/software-patents/articles/stac.html

http://www.vaxxine.com/lawyers/articles/stac.html

They made deals with IBM over OS/2. They were even quoted as stating
that OS/2 was the wave of the future. They then took the ideas from
OS/2, abandoned the project and created what we now know as Windows (TM)
(TheyWish). They were attempting to do the same with Java, they violated
the license, they were sued, they saw the writing on the wall, they
abandoned the project, they settled because they knew they would lose.
Next case.

This one is harder to document. But documentation is available if anyone
wants to make more of an effort than I have here:

keywords: microsoft os2

http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2Warp.html

http://www.pr.uoguelph.ca/cpayne/planet.htm

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/O/OS_2.html

Digital Research released DR-DOS to compete with MS. In Windows 3.1, MS
intentionally introduced a bug that kept Windows 3.1 from installing on
any system that didn't have MS-DOS installed. That case was settled a
while back (2000) with Caldera, who bought DR-DOS from Digital Research.

keywords: caldera microsoft settle

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-235443.html?legacy=cnet

http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/filters/zdmrc/0,14175,6020441,00.html

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,14739,00.asp

There are more links there.

> > needed to back up claims at a moment's notice. But, I left open the
> > possibility of doing so later, if a challenge came to the content,
> > which it did not in this case.
> 
> Consider yourself challenged :-)

In this instance, I'll take my words back and apologi

Re: RHN ISO's and IE6

[Ashley M. Kirchner]

Jim Bija wrote:

> Im not talking about ftp.redhat.com. Im talking about rhn.redhat.com where
> you can download the ISO's via https. Well, you cant with IE but can with
> lynx and Netscape.. Which what started this whole thread that you didnt read
> any of.

No, I did read it, and my opinion, just like many others, is that people
need to use the right tools for the right application.  Get a real FTP program
(and consequently stop wasting your time trying to get them through https).
This whole thread is a moot point if you were using FTP.  I never bothered with
downloading my ISO's through RHN.  It's easier, and many times lots faster going
through an FTP mirror and the result is the same.

--
W | I haven't lost my mind; it's backed up on tape somewhere.
  +
  Ashley M. Kirchner    .   303.442.6410 x130
  IT Director / SysAdmin / WebSmith . 800.441.3873 x130
  Photo Craft Laboratories, Inc.. 3550 Arapahoe Ave. #6
  http://www.pcraft.com . .  ..   Boulder, CO 80303, U.S.A.





___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: [RH List] Re: RHN ISO's and IE6

[Jim Bija]

Im not talking about ftp.redhat.com. Im talking about rhn.redhat.com where
you can download the ISO's via https. Well, you cant with IE but can with
lynx and Netscape.. Which what started this whole thread that you didnt read
any of.
Jim.

- Original Message -
From: "Ashley M. Kirchner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: [RH List] Re: RHN ISO's and IE6


> Jim Bija wrote:
>
> > Is anyone from Redhat ever going to address this problem? I still can
not
> > download the .ISO's with IE.
>
> Odd.  I can do that just fine, both with IE5, 5.5 and 6.0.  And yes,
my
> login "password" is set to 'IEUser@' and I'm getting to ftp.redhat.com,
straight
> to the ISO's and I can download them just fine.  What's your boggle?
>
> --
> W | I haven't lost my mind; it's backed up on tape somewhere.
>   +
>   Ashley M. Kirchner <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   .   303.442.6410 x130
>   IT Director / SysAdmin / WebSmith . 800.441.3873 x130
>   Photo Craft Laboratories, Inc.. 3550 Arapahoe Ave. #6
>   http://www.pcraft.com . .  ..   Boulder, CO 80303, U.S.A.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Redhat-list mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list



___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: [RH List] Re: RHN ISO's and IE6

[Ashley M. Kirchner]

Jim Bija wrote:

> Is anyone from Redhat ever going to address this problem? I still can not
> download the .ISO's with IE.

Odd.  I can do that just fine, both with IE5, 5.5 and 6.0.  And yes, my
login "password" is set to 'IEUser@' and I'm getting to ftp.redhat.com, straight
to the ISO's and I can download them just fine.  What's your boggle?

--
W | I haven't lost my mind; it's backed up on tape somewhere.
  +
  Ashley M. Kirchner    .   303.442.6410 x130
  IT Director / SysAdmin / WebSmith . 800.441.3873 x130
  Photo Craft Laboratories, Inc.. 3550 Arapahoe Ave. #6
  http://www.pcraft.com . .  ..   Boulder, CO 80303, U.S.A.





___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

RE: RHN ISO's and IE6

[Carter, Shaun G]

I downloaded all the ISO's through a mirror (think it was duke) with
Download Accelerator.

Shaun Carter

-Original Message-
From: Jim Bija [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 5:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RHN ISO's and IE6


Is anyone from Redhat ever going to address this problem? I still can not
download the .ISO's with IE. Am i to assume that no one will ever be able to
download with IE the ISO's? Also, anyone know if there is a FTP server that
paying customers can goto and grab the ISO's?. No resumes with https on what
is a HUGE file. IE can sometimes resume a download via http/s, not sure if
Netscape can. Ironic, dont you think? ;)

Sure would be nice to be able to use my RHN username and password to login
to a ftp server at rhn.redhat.com and ftp all of Redhat's software.

Jim.

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: RHN ISO's and IE6


> >> > but could it be that after following the link to download the ISO
> >> > that it is then being redirected to an ftp site uses as does the
> >> > normal public ftp.redhat.com email for a password anonymous ftp
> >> > access??? If so I it is more than likely running into the same
> >> > problem IE has with ftp.redhat.com in that the ftp server is
> >> > rejecting the anonymous password that IE passes which is "IEUser"
> >> > which is rejected by the ftp server due to the fact it is not
> >> > formated as an email address??? Netscape formats a "fake" email
> >> > address off the bat to get around this.
> >
> > So how is this actually an IE issue?  I see this as an ftp server
> > issue.   wu-ftpd has specific ftpaccess commands to deal with this
> > issue (man ftpaccess, look for passwd-check).
>
> Exactly my point my friend. To blame all of our problems on MS or close
> our webpages to browsers we do not like is more detramental to the open
> source community, or any business for that matter, than good.
>
> RedHat was quick to point out in an article the fact Netscape and other
> browsers could not open msn.com although this was an intentional move on
> Microsofts part I feel that not fixing an unintentional problem once it is
> found out is just as bad.
>
> Fact: The most widely used browser on the market today is IE, Even if this
> was gained through shady business practices we still as web developers
> must remeber this and make sure we are not doing away with over half of
> the possible clients on the Internet due to not wanting to cater to
> an "Evil Empire" as some would say.
>
> I still say this IS NOT an IE problem but a server side or for that matter
> a web developer problem. Simply put if your going to offer a service,
> especially one for a fee, over the web you should make sure it is
> accessable to the vast majority of users and face it folks netscape and
> mozilla do not have near the base IE does.
>
> Plain and simple telling someone to change browsers if a site don't work
> is not a solution on the Internet. Designing your site to cater to at
> least the major browsers is the responsibility of the web developer.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Redhat-list mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list



___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list



___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RHN ISO's and IE6

[Trond Eivind Glomsrød]

"Jim Bija" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Is anyone from Redhat ever going to address this problem? 

Writing here won't help. If you have a RHN subscription, contact RHN support.
 
-- 
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.



___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RHN ISO's and IE6

[Jim Bija]

Is anyone from Redhat ever going to address this problem? I still can not
download the .ISO's with IE. Am i to assume that no one will ever be able to
download with IE the ISO's? Also, anyone know if there is a FTP server that
paying customers can goto and grab the ISO's?. No resumes with https on what
is a HUGE file. IE can sometimes resume a download via http/s, not sure if
Netscape can. Ironic, dont you think? ;)

Sure would be nice to be able to use my RHN username and password to login
to a ftp server at rhn.redhat.com and ftp all of Redhat's software.

Jim.

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: RHN ISO's and IE6


> >> > but could it be that after following the link to download the ISO
> >> > that it is then being redirected to an ftp site uses as does the
> >> > normal public ftp.redhat.com email for a password anonymous ftp
> >> > access??? If so I it is more than likely running into the same
> >> > problem IE has with ftp.redhat.com in that the ftp server is
> >> > rejecting the anonymous password that IE passes which is "IEUser"
> >> > which is rejected by the ftp server due to the fact it is not
> >> > formated as an email address??? Netscape formats a "fake" email
> >> > address off the bat to get around this.
> >
> > So how is this actually an IE issue?  I see this as an ftp server
> > issue.   wu-ftpd has specific ftpaccess commands to deal with this
> > issue (man ftpaccess, look for passwd-check).
>
> Exactly my point my friend. To blame all of our problems on MS or close
> our webpages to browsers we do not like is more detramental to the open
> source community, or any business for that matter, than good.
>
> RedHat was quick to point out in an article the fact Netscape and other
> browsers could not open msn.com although this was an intentional move on
> Microsofts part I feel that not fixing an unintentional problem once it is
> found out is just as bad.
>
> Fact: The most widely used browser on the market today is IE, Even if this
> was gained through shady business practices we still as web developers
> must remeber this and make sure we are not doing away with over half of
> the possible clients on the Internet due to not wanting to cater to
> an "Evil Empire" as some would say.
>
> I still say this IS NOT an IE problem but a server side or for that matter
> a web developer problem. Simply put if your going to offer a service,
> especially one for a fee, over the web you should make sure it is
> accessable to the vast majority of users and face it folks netscape and
> mozilla do not have near the base IE does.
>
> Plain and simple telling someone to change browsers if a site don't work
> is not a solution on the Internet. Designing your site to cater to at
> least the major browsers is the responsibility of the web developer.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Redhat-list mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list



___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RHN ISO's and IE6

[Mike Burger]

Where you were incorrect was in your assertion that the case had not even 
gone to trial.

It had gone to trial, and the result was that Microsoft was no longer 
going to be allowed access to Java 2.x, and couldn't include it with their 
OS.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Ed Wilts wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 12:53:34PM -0500, Mike Burger wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Ed Wilts wrote:
> > 
> > > In a continuance of your MS rant, you claimed (I'm paraphrasing since I deleted
> > > the earlier article) "want proof?  see the Sun lawsuit".  This lawsuit hasn't
> > > even gone to trial yet.  Anybody can sue, and a lot of people do, without
> > > merit.  The merit has *NOT* been proven just because Sun is crying foul.
> > 
> > I'm afraid that you're incorrect on this one.  
> 
> What part was I incorrect one?  I did not say the lawsuit was without merit -
> I'm simply stating that a lawsuit isn't proof until the case has been proven
> in a court of law.  That has not yet happened.  Until it has, let's not say
> we have proof.  We frequently do not get the whole story, nor do we understand
> the fine print and the legalities associated with them.  Heck, even the GPL
> has never been tested in a court of law so we don't even have proof that it's
> a legally-binding contract.  Now take into account that there are numerous
> jurisdictions involved, and we're a far way from anybody haven proven anything.
> I'm not a lawyer, you're obviously not a lawyer, and we're probably both better
> off :-)
> 
> 



___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RHN ISO's and IE6

[redhat]

>> > but could it be that after following the link to download the ISO
>> > that it is then being redirected to an ftp site uses as does the
>> > normal public ftp.redhat.com email for a password anonymous ftp
>> > access??? If so I it is more than likely running into the same
>> > problem IE has with ftp.redhat.com in that the ftp server is
>> > rejecting the anonymous password that IE passes which is "IEUser"
>> > which is rejected by the ftp server due to the fact it is not
>> > formated as an email address??? Netscape formats a "fake" email
>> > address off the bat to get around this.
>
> So how is this actually an IE issue?  I see this as an ftp server
> issue.   wu-ftpd has specific ftpaccess commands to deal with this
> issue (man ftpaccess, look for passwd-check).

Exactly my point my friend. To blame all of our problems on MS or close
our webpages to browsers we do not like is more detramental to the open
source community, or any business for that matter, than good.

RedHat was quick to point out in an article the fact Netscape and other
browsers could not open msn.com although this was an intentional move on
Microsofts part I feel that not fixing an unintentional problem once it is
found out is just as bad.

Fact: The most widely used browser on the market today is IE, Even if this
was gained through shady business practices we still as web developers
must remeber this and make sure we are not doing away with over half of
the possible clients on the Internet due to not wanting to cater to
an "Evil Empire" as some would say.

I still say this IS NOT an IE problem but a server side or for that matter
a web developer problem. Simply put if your going to offer a service,
especially one for a fee, over the web you should make sure it is
accessable to the vast majority of users and face it folks netscape and
mozilla do not have near the base IE does.

Plain and simple telling someone to change browsers if a site don't work
is not a solution on the Internet. Designing your site to cater to at
least the major browsers is the responsibility of the web developer.




___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RHN ISO's and IE6

[Ed Wilts]

On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 12:53:34PM -0500, Mike Burger wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Ed Wilts wrote:
> 
> > In a continuance of your MS rant, you claimed (I'm paraphrasing since I deleted
> > the earlier article) "want proof?  see the Sun lawsuit".  This lawsuit hasn't
> > even gone to trial yet.  Anybody can sue, and a lot of people do, without
> > merit.  The merit has *NOT* been proven just because Sun is crying foul.
> 
> I'm afraid that you're incorrect on this one.  

What part was I incorrect one?  I did not say the lawsuit was without merit -
I'm simply stating that a lawsuit isn't proof until the case has been proven
in a court of law.  That has not yet happened.  Until it has, let's not say
we have proof.  We frequently do not get the whole story, nor do we understand
the fine print and the legalities associated with them.  Heck, even the GPL
has never been tested in a court of law so we don't even have proof that it's
a legally-binding contract.  Now take into account that there are numerous
jurisdictions involved, and we're a far way from anybody haven proven anything.
I'm not a lawyer, you're obviously not a lawyer, and we're probably both better
off :-)

-- 
Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RHN ISO's and IE6

[Mike Burger]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Ed Wilts wrote:

> In a continuance of your MS rant, you claimed (I'm paraphrasing since I deleted
> the earlier article) "want proof?  see the Sun lawsuit".  This lawsuit hasn't
> even gone to trial yet.  Anybody can sue, and a lot of people do, without
> merit.  The merit has *NOT* been proven just because Sun is crying foul.

I'm afraid that you're incorrect on this one.  As I recall, the reason 
Microsoft isn't shipping any Java VMs is that they lost their license to 
do so, based on their continued changing of the Microsoft Java VM so that 
it was no longer 100% compatible with Sun's (which violated the terms of 
the license in question).



___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RHN ISO's and IE6

[Ed Wilts]

On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 04:22:15AM -0600, ABrady wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 01:42:42 -0500 (EST)
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quietly intimated:
> 
> > "Not off hand. But I can guarantee a little research can turn it up."

I'm going to interject in a few places because I did the challenge on IE and
standards and your overall (from my point of view) MS-bashing.

The reason I made the request is because I felt you wouldn't be able to back 
it up, especially the comment that it was intentionally broken to further
IE dominance and it was not a bug.  A recent eWeek article (March 18) covered
an interoperability issue between IE and Apache.  I'll quote "After eWeek Labs
alerted Microsoft to the discover, a Microsoft spokesman state that the company
has identified the issue and will work on a fix."  I don't know if this is the
same issue that started this thread, but does show that Microsoft can 
acknowledge interopability issues and that they're not always evil.

In a continuance of your MS rant, you claimed (I'm paraphrasing since I deleted
the earlier article) "want proof?  see the Sun lawsuit".  This lawsuit hasn't
even gone to trial yet.  Anybody can sue, and a lot of people do, without
merit.  The merit has *NOT* been proven just because Sun is crying foul.

> The specific question was, how could I be sure MS was deliberately
> making the browser less than functional rather than just messing it up
> by accident? My reply was the "history" part. 

Which is a totally bogus response.  History does not project the future.  If
this were the case, we'd all be millionares on the stock market.  We've all
done some stupid or wrong things in the past - it doesn't mean we're bad or
wrong people now.

> needed to back up claims at a moment's notice. But, I left open the
> possibility of doing so later, if a challenge came to the content, which
> it did not in this case.

Consider yourself challenged :-)

> > but could it be that after following the link to download the ISO that
> > it is then being redirected to an ftp site uses as does the normal
> > public ftp.redhat.com email for a password anonymous ftp access??? If
> > so I it is more than likely running into the same problem IE has with
> > ftp.redhat.com in that the ftp server is rejecting the anonymous
> > password that IE passes which is "IEUser" which is rejected by the ftp
> > server due to the fact it is not formated as an email address???
> > Netscape formats a "fake" email address off the bat to get around
> > this.

So how is this actually an IE issue?  I see this as an ftp server issue.  
wu-ftpd has specific ftpaccess commands to deal with this issue (man ftpaccess,
look for passwd-check).

> > If this is the case if RH was to do away with the email for password
> > or no access clause in the ftp servers config things should start
> > working. Besides does anyone actually put a real email address as
> > their password anyways :)

See above.  I don't know which ftp server Red Hat is using, but they have
control over what they'll accept.  It is not exclusively a client issue.

.../Ed
-- 
Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: RHN ISO's and IE6

[ABrady]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 01:42:42 -0500 (EST)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quietly intimated:

> My friend had brought up a thread he raised here reguarding not being
> able to download the ISO's from the RedHat Network. I was forwarded
> the answers he had received one of which I feel has been the downfall
> of the exceptance of Linux as well as many other open source software
> packages. I have personaly experienced the backlash of comments made
> without fondation against Microsoft and other proprietary software
> first hand through my boss and about 90 percent of the other employees
> at my place of employment. Comments like:
> 
> "Not off hand. But I can guarantee a little research can turn it up."
> 
> Makes the Linux community look like a bunch of uninformed anti
> Microsoft drones. To say something is broken and then say:
> 
> "History. Read about it. It's all over the internet, some phony, some
> real."
> 
> Is not argue the benefits of Linux it only makes the community look
> like the only way that their product will make it in mainstream
> business is not to point out Linux's pluses and advantages it has over
> Windows. but instead make the community look like mud slinging
> politicians whos only way to win is by smearing mud in the face of the
> competition.
> 
> Anyways all I am saying is PLEASE don't make Linux out to be better
> because Microsoft has a bad history. Instead point out the pluses that
> running a Linux server can bring to a buisness. Lets face it folks the
> old stance well Linux is more stable and so on will not work for ever
> even a blind squirle finds a nut everyonce and a while and face it the
> latest battery of Windows OS's have definatly started to prove
> themselves more stable as the years have past. Instead we need to
> focus on the flexiblity of customizing programs by modifying source
> that is freely available with out the worries of high cost and EULA
> that have over time become even more constraining over time.

As the author of lose lines, let me take my shot.

Yes, I penned those words exactly as given. However, context it missing,
And without it the appearance is far different than this would make
things appear.

The specific question was, how could I be sure MS was deliberately
making the browser less than functional rather than just messing it up
by accident? My reply was the "history" part. And not everyone has an
unlimited time period to go look up and cite sources to get everything
needed to back up claims at a moment's notice. But, I left open the
possibility of doing so later, if a challenge came to the content, which
it did not in this case.

I started making a long reply in answer to this. Instead I'll simply
say, keep things in context next time. Then if you want to rant against
the context, we can deal.

And, my reply stands. If anyone can't see the history of how MS manages
to kill off competition, or take over their products and push them out,
or any of the myriad other things they've done and are doing to this
day, no amount of explanation is going to suffice. Stories are
everywhere. You can't believe everything you read, and some of it is
intentionally made up or distorted. But it is all over the web. And a
little filtering can clear away a lot of the sewage that passes for
fact.

It was a simple reply to a question, and based, as now, on the fact it's
early AM and I have to get ready for work soon. I left the possibility
open for further research if the content was challenged. That hasn't
happened, as your going on appears more about the tone than the
substance. Too bad. Keep it in context next time if you really want to
appear o be making a challenge.

The question was not about the merits of linux. It started about why a
link wouldn't work. I presumed, since it was a download, that it was
FTP. It then turned out it was https, and it was being attempted with
IE. I pointed out (rightly) that IE has problems and was asked about it.
Your furthering of it subtracted the context and made it sound as if I
was failing to misrepresent linux, or represent users of it in a poor
light.

Again, nothing about linux was mentioned, excepting the link that
started this all was about downloading a linux-related item. I made my
point, not to say linux is superior, or that they should use linux and
forget the other stuff, but to say IE is a kludge. It is. I stand by it.
And if you'd like to challenge _THAT_ then say so and I'll get beck to
you when I get home tonight.

> ANYWAYS...
> 
> Sorry about the rant its just I hate having to mend the damage this
> type of Microsoft flaming causes me in talking my boss into allowing
> more trouble free Linux servers into the work place :)

No flaming happened at the outset. The original claim by me, not
altogether different from your statements below, was that IE had
problems, and using other things (different browser and download manager
were both offered as examples) would get around that. How is my
_original_ statement any differ