ru.linux

 
 - RU.LINUX ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 From : Sergey Lentsov                       2:4615/71.10   04 Oct 2001  17:57:30
 To : All
 Subject : URL: http://www.lwn.net/2001/1004/letters.php3
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 

    [1][LWN Logo] 
    
                                [2]Click Here 
    [LWN.net]
    
    Sections:
     [3]Main page
     [4]Security
     [5]Kernel
     [6]Distributions
     [7]On the Desktop
     [8]Development
     [9]Commerce
     [10]Linux in the news
     [11]Announcements
     [12]Linux History
     Letters
    [13]All in one big page
    
    See also: [14]last week's Letters page.
    
 Letters to the editor
 
    Letters to the editor should be sent to [15]letters@lwn.net.
    Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and
    well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some
    way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against
    anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them.
    October 4, 2001
    
    
 From:    <rs@rcsimpson.demon.co.uk>
 To:      <letters@lwn.net>
 Subject: Audio editors
 Date:    Mon, 1 Oct 2001 23:15:23 -0400 (EDT)
 
 Sir,
 
 In last week's "On The Desktop" the opinion was expressed that Linux has
 lots of sound file editors, but none that are realy useful.  Never was a
 truer word spoken!!
 
 I frequently need a sound editor to cut and mix sound effects for a local
 amateur dramatic society, and obviously I try to do it in Linux.  Sadly, I
 am often sorely tempted to give up and do it on Windows.  If you go to
 Freshmeat you will find at least a dozen progams which claim to edit sound
 files and let me tell you that I have tried all of them.  They either
 won't install, or won't compile, or crash, or have incomprehensible user
 interfaces, or zero documentation or don't provide even the simple
 features which I require.  However, almost without exception they have a
 web site which says "This is going to be the Linux CoolEdit2000 / Sound
 GIMP but its still in the early stages of development"
 
 If I were reading this letter, I would say at this point, "This is free
 software.  If you don't like it get off your ass and write some code."
 But that's not the problem.  There are plenty of people writing sound
 editors.  The problem is that instead of writing 80% of two editors they
 have written 15% of 12 editors.
 
 As a user who just wants a simple reliable sound editor with a modern look
 and feel can I send a plea to sound editor authors to get together and
 concentrate their efforts on just one or two projects.  It will hurt some
 egos, but what Linux needs most is quality applications.
 
 Thank you,
 
         Richard Simpson
 
 --
 - ---
 Richard Simpson @ home
    
 From:    Fred Mobach <fred@mobach.nl>
 To:      Linux Weekly News <lwn@lwn.net>
 Subject: Linux DA
 Date:    Thu, 27 Sep 2001 10:37:20 +0200
 
 Hello,
 
 Regarding LinuxDA you wrote "The GNU GPL did not seem to be included."
 
 I've also downloaded the source tarball and posted my comments on Linux
 Today (see
 [16]http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-09-25-012-20-NW-EM-LL).
 
 One of my comments was
 
 "And before I forget, the contents of the file
 -rw-r--r-- 1 fred users 18458 Jul 13 1998 linux/COPYING
 seems quite usual."
 
 That happens to be the GNU GPL with Linus' remark on top of it.
 
 Regards,
 
 Fred
 --
 Fred Mobach - fred@mobach.nl - postmaster@mobach.nl
 Systemhouse Mobach bv - The Netherlands - since 1976
 
 Fight terrorism, be it killers or software patents.
 
    
 From:    Leandro =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Guimar=E3es?= Faria Corsetti Dutra
          <leandrod@mac.com>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Gartner: dump IIS
 Date:    Thu, 27 Sep 2001 13:39:40 -0300
 
 > Apache is the dominant web server platform; anybody wishing to attack
 
 > large numbers of systems via a web server would look at Apache first.
 
 > The "obscure and uninteresting" argument will not wash here.
         The argument is weak because it is hypothetical: no one know for sure h
 ow many
 crackers have tried their hands at Apache and failed.  So it's nearly
 impossible to prove it.
 
         But it is also impossible to disprove it.  While Apache is the most use
 d web
 server, it is also uninteresting to attack, since the source code is
 available.  Not only that, IIS has a much bigger presence in the really
 interesting sites to attack, those of hated multinational companies or
 organisms making commerce or propaganda over the Net with little technical
 qualification in house.
         In other words, using Apache has some correlation to being "a nice guy"
  who
 won't be cracked, but a much bigger correlation to being a technically
 knowledgeable organization with whom perhaps a script kiddie shouldn't meddle.
 --
   _
 / \ Leandro Guimaraes Faria Corsetti Dutra           +55 (11) 246 96 07
 \ / [17]http://homepage.mac.com./leandrod/     BRASIL    +55 (43) 322 89 71
   X  [18]http://tutoriald.sourceforge.net./     [19]mailto:lgcdutra@terra.com.b
 r
 / \ Campanha fita ASCII, contra correio HTML    [20]mailto:leandrod@mac.com
 
    
 From:    Billy Tanksley <btanksley@hifn.com>
 To:      "'letters@lwn.net'" <letters@lwn.net>
 Subject: Linux security debate
 Date:    Thu, 27 Sep 2001 13:33:50 -0700
 
 I'm puzzled by the people claiming that the Linux security API should
 include an automated check for free software.  My problem isn't a dislike of
 free software; rather, I'm puzzled that people are proposing a modification
 to a free software product which can easily be removed.
 
 If a company wants to distribute a closed-source "security" plugin, they
 simply have to modify the Linux kernel to allow closed-source.  Nothing
 easier.
 
 Therefore, this debate shouldn't be about automated mechanisms; it should be
 about whether a security module is the same thing as a kernel module, or
 whether security modules should get the same exclusion from the GPL which
 the kernel modules enjoy.
 
 And I won't even go there.  :-)
 
 OTOH, it occurs to me that perhaps the error was in the story (or my
 understanding of the story), rather than in the arguments.  This issue
 certainly deserves better coverage -- I hope you'll discuss it in greater
 length.
 
 -Billy
 
    
 From:    <anonymous>
 To:      <lwn@lwn.net>
 Subject: SSSCA
 Date:    Sat, 29 Sep 2001 22:18:39 -0700
 
 Honorable Gentlemen:
 
 I read the following on the internet
 ([21]http://www.linuxnews.com/stories.php?story=01/09/17/9591923):
 
 A controversial law was recently drafted, although not yet introduced, by
 U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina), chairman of the Senate Commerce
 committee, and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), titled "The Security Systems
 Standards and Certification Act" (SSSCA). If made into law, the proposed bill
 would make it illegal to "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide
 or otherwise traffic in" digital devices that do not use "certified security
 technologies." The SSSCA, if enacted, will have serious negative affects on
 free software, most specifically to open-source operating systems such as
 Linux.
 
 I find this extremely disturbing. I work at Intel and this bill is coming on
 the heels of some related requests recently made by Microsoft of Intel (I
 don't feel comfortable going into details).
 
 Frankly, it appears that not only has Microsoft gotten away with alleged
 anti-competitive behavior with only a token "slap on the wrist", but now
 wants to make it illegal to even compete against them. If this bill is
 passed, I will seriously start to wonder whether Microsoft is the only
 software lobby in Washington. Please consider this letter the voice of
 another lobby -- the open source community.
 
 If you feel you must pass a law to protect copyright material on computing
 platforms, please develop a law that allows all software writers and hardware
 developers the ability to comply without the threat of financial ruin by an
 alleged monopolist such as Microsoft. My definition of "ability to comply"
 would be a law that follows a standard software file format and standards for
 encryption/decryption algorithms/hardware mechanisms.
 
 Either the military and/or the university system should develop these
 standards such that no licenses would have to be obtained from or fees paid
 to private companies such as Microsoft. If ideas are taken from private
 industry for incorporation into this standard, then it should be up to the
 government to compensate contributing private companies for the intellectual
 property incorporated into the government standard.
 
 An individual or company should only be charged a fine if they are found to
 be out of compliance. It should not be that a company should have to wait for
 government certification before issuing software. This avoids a situation in
 which a large company such as Microsoft has a dedicated inspector that can
 make timely certifications verses a small developer who may have to wait
 months to get a non-dedicated inspector to certify the software. Developers
 that are found to be in compliance with the standards should be immune from
 lawsuits that may arise from damages caused by hackers.
    
 From:    Charles Cazabon <wwwpatentpolicy@discworld.dyndns.org>
 To:      www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
 Subject: "Non-discriminatory" patents will kill the web
 Date:    Tue, 2 Oct 2001 08:06:57 -0600
 Cc:      letters@lwn.net
 
 Dear sirs,
 
 The W3C is currenty bandying about the idea that incorporating patented
 technologies in proposed W3C standards would be acceptable, providing that the
 patent holder agreed to license the patents to all comers for a reasonable and
 "non-discriminatory" fee.
 
 What leap of logic led to this great fallacy?  How did the W3C come to propose
 this absurdity which could lead to the destruction of not only itself, but of
 the web in toto?
 
 Patents serve one purpose -- they allow the patent holder to exclude others
 from manufacturing or using an "invention" of the patent holder.  The patent
 holder can then use this government-granted permit to either monopolize a
 market legally, or to extort money from all other parties interested in
 participating in a market.
 
 The W3C, on the other hand, has always tried to promote technical
 interoperability and sane standards.  It has done an admirable job of this.
 Without royalty-free standards such as those that underpin the web today,
 where would we be?  How advanced or useful would the web be if HTML or other
 standard were encumbered by patents?  How diverse would the content of the web
 be if the only organizations that could publish content were the ones that
 could afford to purchase patent licenses?  The actual dollar amounts are
 immaterial; any patent license fees at all would have completely eliminated
 all but the commercial players, and the commercial players are not what have
 made the web a success today.
 
 The W3C must reject this RAND proposal; it must refuse to endorse any proposed
 standard that uses patented technologies or methods unless a royalty-free
 license is granted to all interested parties.
 
 Charles Cazabon
 --
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Charles Cazabon                  <wwwpatentpolicy@discworld.dyndns.org>
 GPL'ed software available at:  [22]http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
    
    
                                                                          
    
    [23]Eklektix, Inc. Linux powered! Copyright Л 2001 [24]Eklektix, Inc.,
    all rights reserved
    Linux (R) is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
 
 References
 
    1. http://lwn.net/
    2. http://ads.tucows.com/click.ng/pageid=pageid=132-000-001-001
    3. http://lwn.net/2001/1004/
    4. http://lwn.net/2001/1004/security.php3
    5. http://lwn.net/2001/1004/kernel.php3
    6. http://lwn.net/2001/1004/dists.php3
    7. http://lwn.net/2001/1004/desktop.php3
    8. http://lwn.net/2001/1004/devel.php3
    9. http://lwn.net/2001/1004/commerce.php3
   10. http://lwn.net/2001/1004/press.php3
   11. http://lwn.net/2001/1004/announce.php3
   12. http://lwn.net/2001/1004/history.php3
   13. http://lwn.net/2001/1004/bigpage.php3
   14. http://lwn.net/2001/0927/letters.php3
   15. mailto:letters@lwn.net
   16. http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-09-25-012-20-NW-EM-LL
   17. http://homepage.mac.com/leandrod/
   18. http://tutoriald.sourceforge.net/
   19. mailto:lgcdutra@terra.com.br
   20. mailto:leandrod@mac.com
   21. http://www.linuxnews.com/stories.php?story=01/09/17/9591923
   22. http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
   23. http://www.eklektix.com/
   24. http://www.eklektix.com/
 
 --- ifmail v.2.14.os7-aks1
  * Origin: Unknown (2:4615/71.10@fidonet)
 
 

Вернуться к списку тем, сортированных по: возрастание даты  уменьшение даты  тема  автор