"The standard, free software version of Kerberos cannot communicate with Microsoft's modified Kerberos server."
If you had facts, you would present them.
These facts would dispute my claim that Stallman is lying with the above statement.
These facts would show that my ability to authenticate to a Windows 2000 domain controller on a DECstation running NetBSD 1.5 and the "standard, free software version of Kerberos" is a figment of my imagination.
So far, you have not.
At least FUD has some bearing in truth. The above statement goes beyond FUD and is out and out blatant lying.
Ok, it's pretty clear you either can't read or DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT.
Richard Stallman stated: "The standard, free software version of Kerberos cannot communicate with Microsoft's modified Kerberos server."
Richard Stallman never claimed that given some specific instance X in conjunction with instance Y when the moon is in the house of Pluto that free Kerberos would not communicate with Microsoft's implementation.
He said that it didn't work, period.
You defend Stallman for what he didn't say, I attacked him based on what he said. How am I possibly wrong?
Look back at Richard Stallman's commentary and he specifically states that the GPL is not Open Source, but rather Free Software.
Yet basically all of the examples you have given are ones of Open Source innovation.
I think it's intellectually dishonest to on one hand distance Open Source from the GPL when it's not convenient to be associated with Richard Stallman, and then turn around and try to link the GPL with Open Source when it seems advantageous to promote the views of Richard Stallman.
To me at least it is especially clear that the two concepts are greatly different. We need to begin talking about them as separate entities and not as part of the same.
Thus the question really is, What innovations has the Free Software Movement created?
As near as I can see from looking at the list of GNU software, every one of them is a cheap ripoff of the innovations of some other product.
From the first link on the Bayh-dole act:
"As a result, companies did not have exclusive rights under government patents to manufacture and sell resulting products. Understandably, companies were reluctant to invest in and develop new products if competitors could also acquire licenses and then manufacture and sell the same products. Accordingly, the Governmentgovernment remained unsuccessful in attracting private industry to license government-owned patents. Although taxpayers were supporting the federal research enterprise, they were not benefiting from useful products or the economic development that would have occurred with the manufacture and sale of those products. "
Ahh, see this is the innovation that the GPL cripples, as Microsoft said.
What Microsoft is most afraid of is the Government investing billions in GPL welfare programs.
That's what the news.com article stated, that everybody overreacted to. The followup eweek.com article made specific mention of this.
The reason they are afraid of this is that no company will be able to use anything developed under the GPL. The Government would effectively replace the commercial software market for one managed by academics if they were to invest heavily in this direction.
That's all Microsoft was saying. That and a bit of innuendo accusing Linux community of being copyright bandits.
Actually the legitimacy of government paid research being allowed to use the GPL may be the first lawsuit it's involved in. There's a very good argument that if tax payer dollars paid to fund the development, then it has to be released into the public domain.
The government can't real copyright material because it belongs to the public by the very nature of it's reason/means of creation. Government ownership implies public ownership.
Article 2 of the constitution specifically grants the power to conduct elections to the states.
I understand your point. You are correct that the purpose of the judicial system is to arbitrate in these manners. But the laws of our country clearly dictated who this should be, one party didn't like the law and used what power they had available to subvert it.
The SCOTUS injected themselves into the process, not because of any legal argument, but because they wanted to make sure their candidate won the election. Only after the fact did they try to construct a legal argument to justify their decision. It was not at all odd then that their justifications it ran contrary to every legal argument they had ever made in the past.
In the dictionary you might want to look up the word Corruption... For that is what took place.
Actually it was up to the Supreme Court in Florida to interpret the election laws down there in the most fair way.
I don't think it's at all reasonable for a party to go around advocating state's rights and constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, and then throw that all to the wind when it's inconvenient for their political power plays.
Sorry, the mechanism for deciding disputes was in place... The Republicans just didn't like the decision that was made.
An awful lot of academic research is funded by corporations these days. Often part of the agreement is the resulting technology will be licensed back to the businesses which funded the research.
See 18 USC 2252 which makes it a federal offence to knowingly receive child pornography. Child pornography is defined as: "any visual depiction of "sexually explicit conduct" involving children" by 18 USC 2252 (a) (2) (A).
See also 18 USC 2251 is also closely related which makes it illegal to advertise child pornography.
But obviously the newsgroup name gives an indication of the content of the newsgroup.
The majority of posts to comp.os.linux.misc do not contain information on Bicycles. That's sort of the reason why usenet newsgroups have descriptive names instead of numbers. I know if I want linux information I go to c.o.l.m, and not group #2048.
I don't think it's much of a leap of logic to assume a group named alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children contains erotic pictures of children. aka. kiddy porn.
Especially after they've been notified that is what the group contains.
None of these articles indicate what newsgroup is being discussed.
If it was content being posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy I think it would be questionable for the ISP to know anything about this.
However if it was alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children or any of the other usenet groups which obviously contain child pornography, the ISP is responsible for not doing something about it.
Ok, I'm a big proponent for law enforcement on the internet.
However I'm not in the UK, and I believe in privacy.
I think that illegal behavior should be prevented, but monitoring the activities of citizens in the privacy of their own home is wrong.
Why stop at kiddie porn, why not arrest people for visiting the website of the Republican party?
That's the danger of things like RIP, Carnivore, etc.
Ok, think of it this way. In London they have cameras on street corners watching what people do in public. I actually find this acceptable, just think of it as a guaranteed eye-witness.
But would you think it was ok to mount cameras in your home so that the government could monitor what you do in your living room?
Hmm, that's interesting. So if someone posts a message and says "This is kiddie porn", we shouldn't believe them?
Well in the US we have the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
But usually if someone admits guilt, we trust them. Well now if the admission of guilt was beaten out of them, then we have other problems.
But your not saying the confession was beat out of the guy. The guy came right out and broadcast it to public.
You are saying if I rob a bank and then go to the FBI and say "I robbed that bank", that the FBI should just ignore me because they didn't see it happen.
I've heard other corporations talk like this. I've heard the CEO of the Detroit auto makers talk like this regarding Japanese cars. They've gone steps further and had tarrifs imposed.
The major TV networks have fought with cable as well, they've certainly fought with satellite. They want their guaranteed local markets.
You are seriously confused. For once Microsoft is acting responsibly. Allchin is correct. The Government should not be funding open source development at the expense of the free market.
HE NEVER ADVOCATED PUTTING PEOPLE IN JAIL FOR CODING FREE SOFTWARE.
Christ. Over the years I've seen multiple people lobbying congress to force the government to only fund open source and never buy commercial software.
This isn't an attack on open source as an alternative. If you don't want to buy commercial software, then don't. But don't reap the benefits of someone elses work by stealing it either like Napster.
What Microsoft is making clear is that the Government should not be in the software business. Funding open source software at the expense of the free market is contrary to the public interest of our economy.
You only see this as an attack on open source because you know that it's a failed philosophy. The only way open source will ever work is if the government fund it.
The free market is a much better place for this funding. If someone doesn't make a good product, people will not buy it. Whereas with open source we won't have a choice because our tax dollars fund it.
It's interesting. I'm a Democrat and pretty liberal, but I draw the line on this issue of Software Communism.
Slashdot Mirror
"The standard, free software version of Kerberos cannot communicate with Microsoft's modified Kerberos server."
If you had facts, you would present them.
These facts would dispute my claim that Stallman is lying with the above statement.
These facts would show that my ability to authenticate to a Windows 2000 domain controller on a DECstation running NetBSD 1.5 and the "standard, free software version of Kerberos" is a figment of my imagination.
So far, you have not.
At least FUD has some bearing in truth. The above statement goes beyond FUD and is out and out blatant lying.
Ok, it's pretty clear you either can't read or DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT.
Richard Stallman stated: "The standard, free software version of Kerberos cannot communicate with Microsoft's modified Kerberos server."
Richard Stallman never claimed that given some specific instance X in conjunction with instance Y when the moon is in the house of Pluto that free Kerberos would not communicate with Microsoft's implementation.
He said that it didn't work, period.
You defend Stallman for what he didn't say, I attacked him based on what he said. How am I possibly wrong?
Look back at Richard Stallman's commentary and he specifically states that the GPL is not Open Source, but rather Free Software.
Yet basically all of the examples you have given are ones of Open Source innovation.
I think it's intellectually dishonest to on one hand distance Open Source from the GPL when it's not convenient to be associated with Richard Stallman, and then turn around and try to link the GPL with Open Source when it seems advantageous to promote the views of Richard Stallman.
To me at least it is especially clear that the two concepts are greatly different. We need to begin talking about them as separate entities and not as part of the same.
Thus the question really is, What innovations has the Free Software Movement created?
As near as I can see from looking at the list of GNU software, every one of them is a cheap ripoff of the innovations of some other product.
Richard Stallman writes: "The standard, free software version of Kerberos cannot communicate with Microsoft's modified Kerberos server."
a nn ing/security/kerbsteps.asp
I have a DECstation 5000/133 at home which was running NetBSD 1.5. (I'm now back to Ultrix 4.5)
I also have a Windows 2000 Server running Active Directory that I wanted to use as a Kerberos authentication server.
So I downloaded the latest Krb5 software from MIT's distribution site. I compiled this under NetBSD and installed the various binaries, etc.
I then went to Microsoft's site and read this document:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/library/pl
Which describes how to configure your Kerberos client to authenticate with a Win2k domain controller.
I sat back, opened a telnet session to the NetBSD box and successfully logged in to the box using my Win2k password.
This works, it works very well.
I'm planning to set my Sparcstation up to authenticate the same way, as well as my DECstation now running Ultrix.
Richard Stallman is wrong. The free kerberos can communicate with the Microsoft server.
Then I guess that makes Richard Stallman a major whiner for complaining about KDE.
Cluecheck: What's the title of the article we're talking about?
Duh, it's not Open Source which is the problem, that by itself is a good thing. It's the GPL which causes all the problems due to Stallmans' jealousy.
From the first link on the Bayh-dole act:
"As a result, companies did not have exclusive rights under government patents to manufacture and sell resulting products. Understandably, companies were reluctant to invest in and develop new products if competitors could also acquire licenses and then manufacture and sell the same products. Accordingly, the Governmentgovernment remained unsuccessful in attracting private industry to license government-owned patents. Although taxpayers were supporting the federal research enterprise, they were not benefiting from useful products or the economic development that would have occurred with the manufacture and sale of those products. "
Ahh, see this is the innovation that the GPL cripples, as Microsoft said.
Thanks for the link! most informative.
Agreed. I had my DECstation running NetBSD using kerberos authentication against my Win2k domain controller.
I basically did it based on documentation from Microsoft.
- Beowulf?
Innovative? Wasn't IBM and other companies doing cluster based computing long before?
- SSH?
SSH isn't GPL.
- TUX?
Moving a web server into the kernel level, effectively making a single purpose computer is innovative? Dude, I was doing this with CP/M.
- TeX?
TeX came out long before the GPL.
- LyX?
They modified the GPL because of it's viral nature.
- Python?
Definately not GPL.
- FlightGear?
This is an example of innovation? Hell even Microsoft had a flight simulator 20 years ago.
- themes?
The ones from the Win95 Plus! pack, or the blatant ripoff by the Linux community?
- tailored kernels?
People did this for years.
- piles of research code flooding out of universities?
Yep, but most of the really innovative stuff came out long before the GPL... once again.
- etc...?
I don't think you really understand the topic of discussion.
Oh bullshit.
What Microsoft is most afraid of is the Government investing billions in GPL welfare programs.
That's what the news.com article stated, that everybody overreacted to. The followup eweek.com article made specific mention of this.
The reason they are afraid of this is that no company will be able to use anything developed under the GPL. The Government would effectively replace the commercial software market for one managed by academics if they were to invest heavily in this direction.
That's all Microsoft was saying. That and a bit of innuendo accusing Linux community of being copyright bandits.
Actually the legitimacy of government paid research being allowed to use the GPL may be the first lawsuit it's involved in. There's a very good argument that if tax payer dollars paid to fund the development, then it has to be released into the public domain.
The government can't real copyright material because it belongs to the public by the very nature of it's reason/means of creation. Government ownership implies public ownership.
Article 2 of the constitution specifically grants the power to conduct elections to the states.
I understand your point. You are correct that the purpose of the judicial system is to arbitrate in these manners. But the laws of our country clearly dictated who this should be, one party didn't like the law and used what power they had available to subvert it.
The SCOTUS injected themselves into the process, not because of any legal argument, but because they wanted to make sure their candidate won the election. Only after the fact did they try to construct a legal argument to justify their decision. It was not at all odd then that their justifications it ran contrary to every legal argument they had ever made in the past.
In the dictionary you might want to look up the word Corruption... For that is what took place.
I'm not a loonitarian, but...
Actually it was up to the Supreme Court in Florida to interpret the election laws down there in the most fair way.
I don't think it's at all reasonable for a party to go around advocating state's rights and constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, and then throw that all to the wind when it's inconvenient for their political power plays.
Sorry, the mechanism for deciding disputes was in place... The Republicans just didn't like the decision that was made.
An awful lot of academic research is funded by corporations these days. Often part of the agreement is the resulting technology will be licensed back to the businesses which funded the research.
See 18 USC 2252 which makes it a federal offence to knowingly receive child pornography. Child pornography is defined as: "any visual depiction of "sexually explicit conduct" involving children" by 18 USC 2252 (a) (2) (A).
See also 18 USC 2251 is also closely related which makes it illegal to advertise child pornography.
But obviously the newsgroup name gives an indication of the content of the newsgroup.
The majority of posts to comp.os.linux.misc do not contain information on Bicycles. That's sort of the reason why usenet newsgroups have descriptive names instead of numbers. I know if I want linux information I go to c.o.l.m, and not group #2048.
I don't think it's much of a leap of logic to assume a group named alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children contains erotic pictures of children. aka. kiddy porn.
Especially after they've been notified that is what the group contains.
None of these articles indicate what newsgroup is being discussed.
If it was content being posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy I think it would be questionable for the ISP to know anything about this.
However if it was alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children or any of the other usenet groups which obviously contain child pornography, the ISP is responsible for not doing something about it.
Ok, calm down... Take another dose of Prozac.
He forgot a couple words from his sentence.
"The ISP was TOLD that a PARTICULAR newsgroup was being used for peddling child pornography"
There now that is what he was saying and you've satifised your job as an anal-retentive. We can all be happy!
Ok, I'm a big proponent for law enforcement on the internet.
However I'm not in the UK, and I believe in privacy.
I think that illegal behavior should be prevented, but monitoring the activities of citizens in the privacy of their own home is wrong.
Why stop at kiddie porn, why not arrest people for visiting the website of the Republican party?
That's the danger of things like RIP, Carnivore, etc.
Ok, think of it this way. In London they have cameras on street corners watching what people do in public. I actually find this acceptable, just think of it as a guaranteed eye-witness.
But would you think it was ok to mount cameras in your home so that the government could monitor what you do in your living room?
Hmm, that's interesting. So if someone posts a message and says "This is kiddie porn", we shouldn't believe them?
Well in the US we have the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
But usually if someone admits guilt, we trust them. Well now if the admission of guilt was beaten out of them, then we have other problems.
But your not saying the confession was beat out of the guy. The guy came right out and broadcast it to public.
You are saying if I rob a bank and then go to the FBI and say "I robbed that bank", that the FBI should just ignore me because they didn't see it happen.
What an odd reality you must live in.
At RedHat and VA Linux's burn rate of investment capital... Will they still be in existence in 3 years?
2 years?
The end of 2001?
Then will Linux be supported by Catholic Charities?
Will programmers feed their children at soup lines?
I'd like to see you actually argue against Allchin's point by using facts or at least opinions.
Instead you resort to ad hominem.
Ballmer said it was Crummy, not Crappy.
I've heard other corporations talk like this. I've heard the CEO of the Detroit auto makers talk like this regarding Japanese cars. They've gone steps further and had tarrifs imposed.
The major TV networks have fought with cable as well, they've certainly fought with satellite. They want their guaranteed local markets.
You are seriously confused. For once Microsoft is acting responsibly. Allchin is correct. The Government should not be funding open source development at the expense of the free market.
HE NEVER ADVOCATED PUTTING PEOPLE IN JAIL FOR CODING FREE SOFTWARE.
Christ. Over the years I've seen multiple people lobbying congress to force the government to only fund open source and never buy commercial software.
That is what Allchin is attacking.
Allchin is right, you are wrong. Deal with it.
You are seriously confused.
This isn't an attack on open source as an alternative. If you don't want to buy commercial software, then don't. But don't reap the benefits of someone elses work by stealing it either like Napster.
What Microsoft is making clear is that the Government should not be in the software business. Funding open source software at the expense of the free market is contrary to the public interest of our economy.
You only see this as an attack on open source because you know that it's a failed philosophy. The only way open source will ever work is if the government fund it.
The free market is a much better place for this funding. If someone doesn't make a good product, people will not buy it. Whereas with open source we won't have a choice because our tax dollars fund it.
It's interesting. I'm a Democrat and pretty liberal, but I draw the line on this issue of Software Communism.
Not sure what planet you are living on...
But if the software is free, I'm taking my $(x) and buying a new Lexus with it.
The $(x) is never going to be paid to the programmers, support techs, etc. because your giving your product away for free with no strings attached.
People are greedy.
Open Source, like Communism cannot exist in the real world.
"That would just make us look like fanatics"
You are a fanatic.