321. Some comments argue that Section III.E should also cover licensing of communications protocols for use with non-Microsoft client operating systems, for example in enabling interoperability between a Microsoft server and a Linux desktop operating system.(315) Interoperability and communications between a Microsoft server and non-Microsoft client platforms, however, was an issue outside the scope of the litigated case. There has been no proof in this case that Microsoft has a monopoly in server operating system products, or that communications difficulties between non-Microsoft platforms and Microsoft servers somehow played a role in the maintenance of Microsoft's desktop monopoly. Thus, the RPFJ properly does not reach questions of interoperability between Microsoft servers and non-Microsoft platforms.
Right. No point stopping them from leveraging their desktop monoply into a server monopoly, huh? I thought that was EXACTLY wht this case was about - leveraging one monopoly into another.
322. Nor is it appropriate for the remedy to focus on competing operating systems vendors, given that the focus of the case was on middleware threats, not direct threats from operating system competitors. The licensing in Section III.E is limited to being "for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product" because the purpose is to enable server-based middleware threats to interoperate with Windows Operating System Products. Several commentors argue that the licensing should be unrestricted and not for any particular purpose, but this would not be consistent with the theory of the case and the rationale behind client-server disclosures.(316)
Right. No point letting those Commie Free Software and Open Source people in on the info, even though in many areas they constitue the ONLY remaining competition to Microsoft - because this settlement isn't about punishing or limiting Microsoft. It's about making the case go away by doing as little as possible because the jagoffs running our government don't believe in antitrust law.
Classic maneuver by Republican regimes - if you disagree with a law or regulation that you can't get overturned legitimately, just appoint assholes who will refuse to properly enforce it.
The only explanation is that Fucking DOJ is so far into Micorsoft's pocket that they taste dick everytime they open their mouths.
Rumour has it that useful content has been delivered with flash, but I've never seen this. In fact, now that browsers are showing up with this obnoxious crap as a plugin, I've taken to deleting the.so or.dll responsible.
Use a text editor. The HTML genrated by the fancy programs is abominable, often invalid and more and more seems to confuse browsers into taking long periods on unknown activity to render. Use standard HTML. Don't use an image for a button where a text link will do. Make it useable in Lynx or w3m. Don't use frames unless you've got a good reason.
Avoid silly backgrounds (or ANY backgrounds) and silly combinations of foreground and background colors. I am increasingly running into web pages that are absolutely, literally unreadable due to this last.
However, if Microsoft becomes aware or has any patent(s) and/or pending applications that are essential to implement this specification, Microsoft will grant you a royalty-free license under applicable Microsoft intellectual property rights essential to implement this specification for the sole purpose of implementing this specification.
First, there's a word missing in there somewhere. To what are they granting a license under "applicable Microsoft intellectual property rights"? But more importantly, when they grant whatever it is, what will those "applicable Microsoft intellectual property rights" do to the entities that try and use whatever is being granted? This is NOT the GPL by any stretch of the imigination.
In the Halloween memo, some Microsoftie argued that their main defense against Open Source and Free software would be theb 'de-commoditization' of the network protocols - that is, getting people to use proprietary protocols, that MS can control, rather than standard protocols, which they can't and which anyone con implment servers and clients for. I've read the link, and it's garbage. For example:
The problem, said Box, is that the intermediaries--that is, the companies that own the routers and cables between the client and server--will not allow single transactions that take this long.
Complete and total nonsense. The intermediary routers have no idea that your session has taken 5 minutes and couldn't care less. (Some firewalls or edge-routers with reflexive access lists may need their timers adjusted, but these are at the ends of the conversation, not in the middle.)
I need a way to send a request to a server and not the get result for five days."
It exists. Its called email. Hack up an SMTP client and server app and you're done.
The reason that peer-to-peer applications do
work today, said Box, is that programmers create hacks to get around the limitations of the protocol, and this is not good.
Stupid and irrelevant. P2P may need different protocols, but this is no reason to stop using http in general.
My experience has been that technical people tend to focus honestly on facts. The fact that so many of Microsoft's technical people lie so much is further condemnation of the inherent dishonesty of their corporate culture.
You say: "Yes that sounds interesting... Ooops, someone's at the door, hold on..." and then you put the phone down on the table and go back to what you were doing. 5-10 minutes later, go back and hang up the phone.
Most people are scared that if GNOME adopts the.NET framework, Microsoft will change and break things and general anarchy will ensue. I ask you this: how does this differ from the WINE project?
In that respect it's not. I've long considered WINE a non-starter for that reason.
There are at least two posts above yours that give the exact commands to fix this problem on Cisco routers.
If you mean using access lists to protect the SNMP process, sorry but:
Doesn't exist on switches (at least at our levels) and interface ACLs don't exist in the MSMs we're using in our 65xx core switches. Yes MSMs are old, but they work and we (until today) had more important things to do that replace routing modules that did the job..
Doesn't protect agains source IP address spoofing, which is an issue since SNMP is UDP.
This is probably what we'll end up doing anyhow, to narrow our vulnerability while we certify a new release, but it's by no means a true fix for the problem.
If you mean turning off SNMP altogether in the router, it's like poking out your eyes to protect them from sun damage. Network Management Systems (as well as a lot of my home-brewed scripts) assume that SNMP is present and working. Still, in some cases, it may actually be necessary.
I still stand by my original point - if the OpenBSD crew can audit their kernel code and theb OpenSSH code, why can't Cisco and Microsoft (OK, forget MS, they just don't care), with more money than I can think about, do the same?
Christ, I've got 20+ Cisco routers and 40+ plus Cisco switches and EVERY GODDAMN ONE is vulnerable, including ones we installed in August. It's gonna take weeks to test new versions of software and then install it. And all because the fucking vendors are so goddamn lazy. The causes and solutions for buffer overflows have been available for YEARS. What are these assholes doing with all the money they extort from us?
One thing this does prove is the complete fallacy of trusting "professionally" written proprietary software. Cisco and Microsoft make more money than God and they are BOTH vulnerable to this crap.
Disable snmp-sets (which allows the remote admin to change data on the target system). I only use SNMP for infomation gathering, and do nothing with snmp-sets.
We do the same, almost universally, certainly for all of our Cisco routers and switches. Unfortunately, that does not address all the issues here, as some of these are buffer overflows which are independent of community string and allow DOS attacks. Unfortunately, the grisly details don't seem to be available - CERT refers to docs at mitre, but mitre currently isn't disclosing what these contain.
If you don't like a software's EULA -- you get someone else's software. If there is nobody else -- well, than there is no way to make it then, otherwise.
Never heard of a monopoly, eh? Or you're another one of these assholes that thinks that the market will solve everything, and that antitrust law is just wrong. Sorry, but once a company gets enough market dominance to blackmail distributors/OEMs who want to deal with competition, the free market is out of luck and some other mechanism is required. I happen to think that right now big business is much more dangerous than big government.
I'm still using NT at work, and though it's way better than 9x, and SP6a helped, it's still somewhat flaky bloatware.
But the majority of home users will be using 95/98/ME crapola for sometime to come. And just for your information, insecure is definitely a major form of 'unreliable'.
But you missed the main point: Microsofties, consciously or otherwise, choose language to generalize the problems they create, to imply that the problems are with computers in general, or software in general, and the quote from the article is an example of this. This is (part of) the point I was trying to make. It was someone else who used the words "unstable and unreliable".
As someone else here says, "remember, it's not a computer it's a Windows virus" or words to that effect. Sorry, but, while no software is perfect, some is much worse than others.
Describing the state of computing today as unstable and unreliable, he said Microsoft chairman Bill Gates "is really annoyed by the incredible pain we put everyone through in computing."
That shoud be "Describing the state of Microsoft Windows computing today as unstable and unreliable,"
My linux stuff doesn't crash and hang (well, almost never).
Well, when I copy and paste this into an mbox file, fix the bullshit spaces that slashcode adds (one unfortunately in the boundary definiton in the multipart/alternative header), it seems to work OK in pine 4.33 - it attempts (mostly succeeds) to render the HTML portion of the message, while making the text portion available through an attachment list. If you select the text portion in the attachment list, you get it. If you select the html portion, it start konqueror (this is on RH7.2). Seems OK to me.
people who don't have MIME compliant browsers, don't they? That'd be PINE users, for a start.
PINE doesn't support MIME? I must be missing something here - I use pine all the time and never have problems with attachments done using base64 with mime headers. Can you tell me what I am missing here, please?
I figure "I'm not making any money off this code" so why should I make sure no-one else is either?
Makes sense until the point some outfit gets it in their mind that they are the ONLY ones who should make software or make money off of code, and who then uses your code to help make this happen. Microsoft is such an outfit. Any code given to them for their use is used against anyone who doesn't see the world their way. Witness their use of Kerberos. The BSD license is fine in a world that isn't dominated by a vendor with no ethics, desiring no competiton.
The linked article clearly mentions that MSFT uses the BSD implemntation of FTP and a few more command line tools. Here is an excerpt since you don't seem to have read it
Oops. You definitely have a point, in that MSTCP.DLL lacks the copyright notice shown above. Which doesn't prove that they didn't steal code, but certainly taks the sting out of my point specifically regarding the TCP/IP stack.
If your ftp client works fine (no comments from the peanut gallery!) then why change it? Microsoft has other fish to fry. And the software was licensed perfectly legally, since the inclusion of the copyright notice satisfied the BSD license.
Which is exactly the point - someone wrote the code for free usage, but a big (in this case nasty) corporation benefits. If the fellow who wrote the code wanted it used this way, that's his choice. But I wouldn't want my code used this way (presuming I wrote any that they wanted).
unlike most of the zealots on Slashdot I don't think the purpose of Free Software is a battle between prospective platforms and user communities
Well that's nice, but if you capitalize, as in "Free Software", you are apparently referring the Free Software Foundation. And Stallman does get to define what that is "for", at least for those who work with him and use his license. And Stallman's concern is the Free software stay Free, and that the work that went into creating it not be absorbed to the benefit of some corporation.
Don't like it? Then don't incorporate GPL'd source code into your programs. Simple.
The Open Source movement, and the BSD communities are a separate issue.
The BSD license is about getting as many people as possible to benefit from your software
Well, the MIT license is apparently similar and look what MSFT did with Kerberos - made a version of their own that has many of the features, but does NOT interoperate. This closed code is being used against Samba.
Programmers (should) get to decide how their code will be used, but I for one would be furious if I worked on the open implementation of Kerberos, then saw scumbags like MS use it the way they used MS-Kerberos to increase vendor lockin.
The parent comment said: All this effort so alleged "artists" can make that nasty scratching noise with a computer? Shit, why bother?
It's like there's some media conspiracy to promote rapping/DJ's as some sort of artists - like the way the Chris Rock show keeps (kept?) raving about "grandmaster flash" - what a load of crap.
I'm not often moved to remember Ayn Rand's writings, but this brings to mind the talk Ellsworth Toohey gives near the end of The Fountainhead about how to destroy the arts by continuously promoting the mediocre or worse. (Yes I'm kissing my karma goodbye - oh well.)
Yes I quoted my whole post to get out from under the moderation nazi's.
Dimbulb moderators: just because you disagree with something doesn't make it a troll. Blow me.
Watching capitalists in action has definitely soured me on unbridled capitalism - the way big business conducts itself is disgusting to me, and I fear it more than big government (especially since big business subverts the government - witness DMCA and UCITA, just for starters). And Rand's strident condemnation of charity and welfare grates somewhat too.
But I still think she's a hell of a writer and I still reread Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead every few years. Her vision of man as heroic and life as a wonderful thing to be made the most of are very appealing - even if reality often falls short.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions on this, but I disagree.
On the other hand, "rap music" is a contradiction in terms. (Ooops, I guess that giant sucking sound is my karma heading south.)
All this effort so alleged "artists" can make that nasty scratching noise with a computer? Shit, why bother?
It's like there's some media conspiracy to promote rapping/DJ's as some sort of artists - like the way the Chris Rock show keeps (kept?) raving about "grandmaster flash" - what a load of crap.
I'm not often moved to remember Ayn Rand's writings, but this brings to mind the talk Ellsworth Toohey gives near the end of The Fountainhead about how to destroy the arts by continuously promoting the mediocre or worse. (Yes I'm kissing my karma goodbye - oh well.)
Slashdot Mirror
From Disclosure Of Communications Protocols : Right. No point stopping them from leveraging their desktop monoply into a server monopoly, huh? I thought that was EXACTLY wht this case was about - leveraging one monopoly into another. Right. No point letting those Commie Free Software and Open Source people in on the info, even though in many areas they constitue the ONLY remaining competition to Microsoft - because this settlement isn't about punishing or limiting Microsoft. It's about making the case go away by doing as little as possible because the jagoffs running our government don't believe in antitrust law.
Classic maneuver by Republican regimes - if you disagree with a law or regulation that you can't get overturned legitimately, just appoint assholes who will refuse to properly enforce it.
The only explanation is that Fucking DOJ is so far into Micorsoft's pocket that they taste dick everytime they open their mouths.
no matter how cool the flash animations
.so or .dll responsible.
Rumour has it that useful content has been delivered with flash, but I've never seen this. In fact, now that browsers are showing up with this obnoxious crap as a plugin, I've taken to deleting the
Use a text editor. The HTML genrated by the fancy programs is abominable, often invalid and more and more seems to confuse browsers into taking long periods on unknown activity to render. Use standard HTML. Don't use an image for a button where a text link will do. Make it useable in Lynx or w3m. Don't use frames unless you've got a good reason.
Avoid silly backgrounds (or ANY backgrounds) and silly combinations of foreground and background colors. I am increasingly running into web pages that are absolutely, literally unreadable due to this last.
More stuff to avoid:
HTML Hell Page
From the license:
However, if Microsoft becomes aware or has any patent(s) and/or pending applications that are essential to implement this specification, Microsoft will grant you a royalty-free license under applicable Microsoft intellectual property rights essential to implement this specification for the sole purpose of implementing this specification.
First, there's a word missing in there somewhere. To what are they granting a license under "applicable Microsoft intellectual property rights"? But more importantly, when they grant whatever it is, what will those "applicable Microsoft intellectual property rights" do to the entities that try and use whatever is being granted? This is NOT the GPL by any stretch of the imigination.
In the Halloween memo, some Microsoftie argued that their main defense against Open Source and Free software would be theb 'de-commoditization' of the network protocols - that is, getting people to use proprietary protocols, that MS can control, rather than standard protocols, which they can't and which anyone con implment servers and clients for. I've read the link, and it's garbage. For example:
The problem, said Box, is that the intermediaries--that is, the companies that own the routers and cables between the client and server--will not allow single transactions that take this long.
Complete and total nonsense. The intermediary routers have no idea that your session has taken 5 minutes and couldn't care less. (Some firewalls or edge-routers with reflexive access lists may need their timers adjusted, but these are at the ends of the conversation, not in the middle.)
I need a way to send a request to a server and not the get result for five days."
It exists. Its called email. Hack up an SMTP client and server app and you're done.
The reason that peer-to-peer applications do work today, said Box, is that programmers create hacks to get around the limitations of the protocol, and this is not good.
Stupid and irrelevant. P2P may need different protocols, but this is no reason to stop using http in general.
My experience has been that technical people tend to focus honestly on facts. The fact that so many of Microsoft's technical people lie so much is further condemnation of the inherent dishonesty of their corporate culture.
"Democracy just doesn't work."
How would we know? Right now it's "one million dollars, one vote" - that's NOT democracy.
My father's trick:
... Ooops, someone's at the door, hold on..." and then you put the phone down on the table and go back to what you were doing. 5-10 minutes later, go back and hang up the phone.
You say: "Yes that sounds interesting
Most people are scared that if GNOME adopts the .NET framework, Microsoft will change and break things and general anarchy will ensue. I ask you this: how does this differ from the WINE project?
In that respect it's not. I've long considered WINE a non-starter for that reason.
If you mean using access lists to protect the SNMP process, sorry but:
This is probably what we'll end up doing anyhow, to narrow our vulnerability while we certify a new release, but it's by no means a true fix for the problem.
If you mean turning off SNMP altogether in the router, it's like poking out your eyes to protect them from sun damage. Network Management Systems (as well as a lot of my home-brewed scripts) assume that SNMP is present and working. Still, in some cases, it may actually be necessary.
I still stand by my original point - if the OpenBSD crew can audit their kernel code and theb OpenSSH code, why can't Cisco and Microsoft (OK, forget MS, they just don't care), with more money than I can think about, do the same?
Christ, I've got 20+ Cisco routers and 40+ plus Cisco switches and EVERY GODDAMN ONE is vulnerable, including ones we installed in August. It's gonna take weeks to test new versions of software and then install it. And all because the fucking vendors are so goddamn lazy. The causes and solutions for buffer overflows have been available for YEARS. What are these assholes doing with all the money they extort from us?
One thing this does prove is the complete fallacy of trusting "professionally" written proprietary software. Cisco and Microsoft make more money than God and they are BOTH vulnerable to this crap.
Disable snmp-sets (which allows the remote admin to change data on the target system). I only use SNMP for infomation gathering, and do nothing with snmp-sets.
We do the same, almost universally, certainly for all of our Cisco routers and switches. Unfortunately, that does not address all the issues here, as some of these are buffer overflows which are independent of community string and allow DOS attacks. Unfortunately, the grisly details don't seem to be available - CERT refers to docs at mitre, but mitre currently isn't disclosing what these contain.
Intercal
If you don't like a software's EULA -- you get someone else's software. If there is nobody else -- well, than there is no way to make it then, otherwise.
Never heard of a monopoly, eh? Or you're another one of these assholes that thinks that the market will solve everything, and that antitrust law is just wrong. Sorry, but once a company gets enough market dominance to blackmail distributors/OEMs who want to deal with competition, the free market is out of luck and some other mechanism is required. I happen to think that right now big business is much more dangerous than big government.
I'm still using NT at work, and though it's way better than 9x, and SP6a helped, it's still somewhat flaky bloatware.
But the majority of home users will be using 95/98/ME crapola for sometime to come. And just for your information, insecure is definitely a major form of 'unreliable'.
But you missed the main point: Microsofties, consciously or otherwise, choose language to generalize the problems they create, to imply that the problems are with computers in general, or software in general, and the quote from the article is an example of this. This is (part of) the point I was trying to make. It was someone else who used the words "unstable and unreliable".
As someone else here says, "remember, it's not a computer it's a Windows virus" or words to that effect. Sorry, but, while no software is perfect, some is much worse than others.
Describing the state of computing today as unstable and unreliable, he said Microsoft chairman Bill Gates "is really annoyed by the incredible pain we put everyone through in computing."
That shoud be "Describing the state of Microsoft Windows computing today as unstable and unreliable,"
My linux stuff doesn't crash and hang (well, almost never).
... if this is a poll, which is how the headline reads.
Well, when I copy and paste this into an mbox file, fix the bullshit spaces that slashcode adds (one unfortunately in the boundary definiton in the multipart/alternative header), it seems to work OK in pine 4.33 - it attempts (mostly succeeds) to render the HTML portion of the message, while making the text portion available through an attachment list. If you select the text portion in the attachment list, you get it. If you select the html portion, it start konqueror (this is on RH7.2). Seems OK to me.
I do, all the time:
/usr/bin/telnet supai.oit.zumass.edu 25
[olc@hex olc]$
Picky, picky, picky.
He meant telnetd.
people who don't have MIME compliant browsers, don't they? That'd be PINE users, for a start.
PINE doesn't support MIME? I must be missing something here - I use pine all the time and never have problems with attachments done using base64 with mime headers. Can you tell me what I am missing here, please?
I figure "I'm not making any money off this code" so why should I make sure no-one else is either?
Makes sense until the point some outfit gets it in their mind that they are the ONLY ones who should make software or make money off of code, and who then uses your code to help make this happen. Microsoft is such an outfit. Any code given to them for their use is used against anyone who doesn't see the world their way. Witness their use of Kerberos. The BSD license is fine in a world that isn't dominated by a vendor with no ethics, desiring no competiton.
The linked article clearly mentions that MSFT uses the BSD implemntation of FTP and a few more command line tools. Here is an excerpt since you don't seem to have read it
Oops. You definitely have a point, in that MSTCP.DLL lacks the copyright notice shown above. Which doesn't prove that they didn't steal code, but certainly taks the sting out of my point specifically regarding the TCP/IP stack.
If your ftp client works fine (no comments from the peanut gallery!) then why change it? Microsoft has other fish to fry. And the software was licensed perfectly legally, since the inclusion of the copyright notice satisfied the BSD license.
Which is exactly the point - someone wrote the code for free usage, but a big (in this case nasty) corporation benefits. If the fellow who wrote the code wanted it used this way, that's his choice. But I wouldn't want my code used this way (presuming I wrote any that they wanted).
unlike most of the zealots on Slashdot I don't think the purpose of Free Software is a battle between prospective platforms and user communities
Well that's nice, but if you capitalize, as in "Free Software", you are apparently referring the Free Software Foundation. And Stallman does get to define what that is "for", at least for those who work with him and use his license. And Stallman's concern is the Free software stay Free, and that the work that went into creating it not be absorbed to the benefit of some corporation.
Don't like it? Then don't incorporate GPL'd source code into your programs. Simple.
The Open Source movement, and the BSD communities are a separate issue.
The BSD license is about getting as many people as possible to benefit from your software
Well, the MIT license is apparently similar and look what MSFT did with Kerberos - made a version of their own that has many of the features, but does NOT interoperate. This closed code is being used against Samba.
Programmers (should) get to decide how their code will be used, but I for one would be furious if I worked on the open implementation of Kerberos, then saw scumbags like MS use it the way they used MS-Kerberos to increase vendor lockin.
Bzzzzt! Thanks for playing.
# strings ftpNT.exe |fgrep -i regents
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
# strings ftp98.exe |fgrep -i regents
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
How the fuck did the comment I'm responding to get to be a score:5? Dimbulb moderators abound.
The parent comment said:
All this effort so alleged "artists" can make that nasty scratching noise with a computer? Shit, why bother?
It's like there's some media conspiracy to promote rapping/DJ's as some sort of artists - like the way the Chris Rock show keeps (kept?) raving about "grandmaster flash" - what a load of crap.
I'm not often moved to remember Ayn Rand's writings, but this brings to mind the talk Ellsworth Toohey gives near the end of The Fountainhead about how to destroy the arts by continuously promoting the mediocre or worse. (Yes I'm kissing my karma goodbye - oh well.)
Yes I quoted my whole post to get out from under the moderation nazi's.
Dimbulb moderators: just because you disagree with something doesn't make it a troll. Blow me.
You know, it's funny.
Watching capitalists in action has definitely soured me on unbridled capitalism - the way big business conducts itself is disgusting to me, and I fear it more than big government (especially since big business subverts the government - witness DMCA and UCITA, just for starters). And Rand's strident condemnation of charity and welfare grates somewhat too.
But I still think she's a hell of a writer and I still reread Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead every few years. Her vision of man as heroic and life as a wonderful thing to be made the most of are very appealing - even if reality often falls short.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions on this, but I disagree.
On the other hand, "rap music" is a contradiction in terms. (Ooops, I guess that giant sucking sound is my karma heading south.)
All this effort so alleged "artists" can make that nasty scratching noise with a computer? Shit, why bother?
It's like there's some media conspiracy to promote rapping/DJ's as some sort of artists - like the way the Chris Rock show keeps (kept?) raving about "grandmaster flash" - what a load of crap.
I'm not often moved to remember Ayn Rand's writings, but this brings to mind the talk Ellsworth Toohey gives near the end of The Fountainhead about how to destroy the arts by continuously promoting the mediocre or worse. (Yes I'm kissing my karma goodbye - oh well.)