ru.linux

 
 - RU.LINUX ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 From : Sergey Lentsov                       2:4615/71.10   08 Feb 2002  14:33:16
 To : All
 Subject : URL: http://www.lwn.net/2002/0207/letters.php3
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 

    [1][LWN Logo] [No ads right now]
    [LWN.net]
 
    Sections:
     [2]Main page
     [3]Security
     [4]Kernel
     [5]Distributions
     [6]Development
     [7]Commerce
     [8]Linux in the news
     [9]Announcements
     Letters
    [10]All in one big page
 
    See also: [11]last week's Letters page.
 
 Letters to the editor
 
    Letters to the editor should be sent to [12]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.
    February 7, 2002
 From:    Michael Robertson <michael@lindows.com>
 To:      lwn@lwn.net
 Subject: Your lwn piece on Lindows.com
 Date:    Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:13:43 -0800
 Cc:      john@lindows.com,cheryl@lindows.com
 
 Jonathan,
 
 I read your LWN.net piece referencing Lindows.com.
 
 I concur that "it's about the software, and sustainable ways to ensure its
 continued development." which was a reference to the entire software
 business, not Lindows.com.
 
 I do think you unfairly criticized Lindows.com and misled your readers with
 your comment, "Lindows is trying to present itself as part of the free
 software community. So, for example, we now have the 'LindowsBuzz'".
 Lindows.com did not create, commission or have any affiliation with
 LindowsBuzz or any of the sites you mentioned. Your suggestion otherwise is
 in error and it would have been simple for you to verify by contacting us
 with a simple email message.
 
 Your entitled to your opinion that "Lindows is seemingly unaware of how the
 Linux community works; it would like to wear the trappings of the community
 without actually being a part of it". But perhaps your readers would be
 interested in some actual facts. Lindows.com has contributed code to open
 source projects. Lindows.com has given financial support to several open
 source initiatives. Lindows.com has made significant investments in linux
 companies, and we have hired open source companies to help us reach our
 goals. In addition, we've recently released an early version of our
 product. We have accomplished this in just 5 months.
 
 I am constantly surprised at the harsh treatment many young companies
 receive in linux focus publications based solely on a writers conjecture
 and opinion rather than any attempt at a balanced presentation of the
 facts. I hope you'll keep an open mind in the future about Lindows.com and
 give us some realistic time to achieve the big goals we have set.
 
 -- MR
 
 Lindows.com
 michael@lindows.com
 858-410-5941
 
 Bring choice to computers: Become a Lindows.com Insider
 [13]http://www.lindows.com/signup
 From:    Robert Davies <rob_davies@ntlworld.com>
 To:      lwn@lwn.net
 Subject: LSB and Distributions - SuSE box claims support of LSB standard
 Date:    Fri, 1 Feb 2002 22:12:58 +0000
 
 > The time has come for the Linux distributors to either announce their plans
 > for standards compliance, or to explain why they feel this compliance is no
 > longer necessary. The time for waiting is over
 
 I cannot agree more.  From outside of SuSE 7.3 Update box :
 
     All software packages in RPM format; source code in SRPM format.
    This version was compiled with gcc 2.95.3.  SuSE supports the LSB standard.
 
 Unfortunately in reviews I've seen there is little mention of this.  They
 altered their filesystem hierarchy and have included innserv(8) which
 implements the LSB init.d stuff, and the script '/usr/lib/lsb/install_initd'
 has existed since SuSE 7.1.
 
 I switched from Red Hat after looking at RH 7.0, and realising
 the iplications of gcc 2.96, and it's C++ linking incopatabilities with 2.95
 and earlier, and gcc 3.0.
 
 Without some positive publicity for Distributions which have taken steps for
 LSB compliance, I fear the momentum behind LSB will be lost.  It may become
 an ignored lost standard, in the face of more exciting 'cool' stuff.  Few of
 the enthusiasts on the net are bothered by it, as of course they prefer a
 "./configure; make; su -c 'make install'"  cycle anyway.
 
 Rob
 From:    Adam Wosotowsky <adam@trellisinc.com>
 To:      lwn@lwn.net
 Subject: Linux Standarc Base commment
 Date:    Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:13:29 -0500
 
 I just wanted to make a comment that you may or may not have heard
 before and perhaps you can factor into your comments on the LSB.
 
 The LSB has a great chance to be counter-productive.  I have a friend
 who began a little movement to replace the GNU utils with linux-specific
 ones.  This can greatly increase the speed of an ls, or mv, or cp
 because it only has to work on linux.  Unfortunatley this little quest
 for effective linux-only replacement has been somewhat sidelined because
 the LSB was written by looking at GNU manpages, which are going to
 include a lot of stuff that most linux users never ever use.  For
 example, why require an "exclude this pattern" option in command XXX
 when a simple little use of grep could accomplish the same thing?
 
 Anyhow, I agree that the vision of the LSB is a good one, but am wary of
 its effects on the development of new versions of the same "old" tools.
 I don't require a response, I just wanted to give some food for thought.
 
 I really enjoy LWN, BTW.  <smile>
 
 --adam
 From:    Pete Flugstad <pete_flugstad@icon-labs.com>
 To:      tina@newsforge.com
 Subject: Re: Out of the box, Linux is 'dreadfully insecure'
 Date:    Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:44:34 -0600
 Cc:      letters@lwn.net
 
 Ms Gasperson,
 
    I agree with almost everything you say in your article:
 
 [14]http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/01/29/1635245&mode=thread
 
 except the title.  I don't know who picked it, but lets be
 objective here: "dreadfully insecure".  As compared to say,
 Windows XP.  While some Linux distro's may have problems with
 defualt configurations that rather insecure, it's a darn sight
 better than ANY OS Microsoft has EVER shipped.
 
 In addition, many distros (I know Red Hat and Mandrake in
 particular) are well aware of what their default settings
 are, and over the last 2 years have taken great strides in
 tightening their default security settings.  Go install
 Red Hat 6.1 or 6.2, and compare it's default settings to
 Red Hat 7.2.  You'll see a world of difference in the number
 of services that are enabled by default (very few actually),
 firewall settings, setuid settings, etc.
 
 Now compare this to XP again - Microsoft yet again ships
 an OS with everything and the kitchen sink (can you say
 UPnP) enabled.  This on a *consumer* os.  IMO, that's
 _dreadfully_ insecure.
 
 As I noted above, the article itself is quite good.
 
 Please, try to be a little more objective in chosing titles,
 and try and choose a title that actually has something to
 do with the information in the article, which I found
 quite informative.
 
 Thanks,
 Pete Flugstad
 From:    "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Maddog on DVD's
 Date:    Tue, 5 Feb 2002 22:13:29 -0500
 
 I must admit, I'm a little surprised at Jon.
 
 He asserts, in a CNet News story to which LWN linked this week, that
 the movie industry "cite[s] illegal pirating" of movies to justfiy
 region coding.
 
 This is not only not the reason that they do this, it's not even -- I
 don't believe -- the reason that they admit to in public.
 
 What's really at issue here, you see, is that they can make more
 *money* if they restrict when things are issued in different
 territories.  So they put a region locking code on the disc, and code
 in the players to prevent discs from more than one region from being
 playable at a time.
 
 You *can* reprogram the region code to deal with "I moved to England",
 (though as maddog notes, you would still have to deal power issues --
 though maybe not with signal standards; *my* $80 player does both NTSC
 and PAL).
 
 But you can only do it some small, finite number of times (like, maybe,
 5 or 10) before the player locks up on you.
 
 But avoiding *this* is a red herring anyway; since region coding
 doesn't involve encryption, it has nothing to do with DMCA.
 
 What you become a federal felon for doing is unlocking CSS -- the
 Content Scrambling System, which encrypts the data used to play back
 the DVD in the first place.
 
 Now, we're probably mostly familiar with the DeCSS case -- Norwegian
 Johansen has been arrested by his local police at the behest of the
 MPAA (yeah, that's right), and that's not to mention the fiasco with
 Eric Corley of 2600 Magazine, enjoined from *linking* to other sites
 which publish DeCSS source code.
 
 In fashions ranging from Perl source through English to Haiku.
 
 Corporate America continues to behave in the amoral fashion we have
 designed it to -- trying to maximize profit at the expense of anything
 we'd call reasonable behavior.  It continues to buy off legislators to
 modify laws in such a fashion as to deprive American citizens of more
 and more of their rights.  I see no reason it won't continue to do
 this, and the more unreasonable commercial laws which are passed, and
 the more frequently we're forced to break the law in the course of what
 *used to be* normal living...
 
 the less we will, as a citizenry, respect the law in general.
 
 I used to think it was just a joke, when I saw the words "Second
 American Revolution" in science fiction novels.
 
 Not anymore.  I'm figuring on the War of 2012, at the very latest.
 
 Unless we fix it.
 
 Unless we take back our government.
 
 "When they came for me, there was no one left to speak up."
 
 "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."
 
 And most importantly, these days:
 
 "They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security,
 deserve neither liberty, nor security."
 
 (This sounds off topic maybe... but if you haven't been following SSSCA
 v Linux, or can't make the connection, then I feel sorry for you.  I
 think it's perfectly on topic, myself.  Freedom is the point here, no?)
 
 Cheers,
 -- jra
 --
 Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra@baylink.com
 Member of the Technical Staff     Baylink                             RFC 2100
 The Suncoast Freenet         The Things I Think
 Tampa Bay, Florida        [15]http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1
 274
 
    "If you don't have a dream; how're you gonna have a dream come true?"
      -- Captain Sensible, The Damned (from South Pacific's "Happy Talk")
 From:    Martin C.Atkins <mcatkins@giasbg01.vsnl.net.in>
 To:      lwn@lwn.net
 Subject: PDA and Telephone Convergence: The Death of Linux on the PDA?
 Date:    Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:28:38 +0530
 
 PDA and Telephone Convergence: The Death of Linux on the PDA?
 
 Everyone seems to be saying that PDAs and mobile phones are going to
 converge, and we are beginning to see the first effective devices
 coming out now. I'm worried that this is going to lock Linux
 out of the PDA marketplace.
 
 The crux of the problem is that these devices seem to share much of the
 non-DSP-type phone functionality with the PDA functionality, and
 on the same processor. Thus it will not be easy to do what was
 done for the iPAQ, and replace the PDA operating system - that
 will leave a complex interface to the DSP part of the phone to
 be replaced, and even if it can be worked out what to do (which
 will probably be different for each phone model), what
 regularatory issues might have to be resolved before the result
 can be used? (I don't know the answer, but I suspect the situation
 might be like that of dumb ISDN adaptors, where some of the driver
 code has had to go through type-approval mechanisms before the
 device can legally - at least in some countries - be attached to
 the phone line.)
 
 This issue seems to affect both types of device:
 1) Phones with added PDA functionality, and
 2) PDAs with GSM/GPRS/etc interfaces added.
 
 How can we hope to get Linux on either of these (without effectively
 throwing away the phone functionality!)? Talking the phone manufacturers
 into using Linux themselves doesn't seem likely, given the alliances
 they have made with Symbian, etc. (See the receent article about
 huge cash investments from phone company investors into Symbian)
 Equally, it seems unlikely that Palm, for example, would embrace
 Linux (Unfortunately :-) !
 
 The only place where this does not seem to be a problem is the
 two-box scenario: phone + PDA connected by Bluetooth (probably),
 since Linux is already on PDAs, and Bluetooth stacks already exist.
 But, although I think I personally favour this arrangement for other
 reasons, I can't see it being the popular one! (At least, not once
 someone gets their act together and produces a half-decent Bluetooth
 headset! Aside: that, for example, does stereo, so that the PDA/phone
 can also be an MP3 player, without using *another* headset!)
 
 The recently reported growing popularity of Nokia's 9210, only
 confirms my worries. Handspring are also now saying that they do not
 believe there is a future in unconnected PDAs. The only hope is
 that some of the current rash of Linux-based PDAs can buck this trend
 by providing the phone functionality themselves (not easy to do!).
 
 I don't really mind (too much) phones being closed devices, but I *would*
 *like* my organiser to be open, and it's looking more and more as if PDAs
 without phone functionality are dead products in the medium to long term,
 and if Linux can't move onto these products, it will die in this arena
 with the unconnected PDA.
 
 Oh dear!
 Can anyone point out what I'm missing?
 
 Martin
 --
 Martin C. Atkins        martin@mca-ltd.com
 Mission Critical Applications Ltd, U.K.
    [16]Eklektix, Inc. Linux powered! Copyright Л 2002 [17]Eklektix, Inc.,
    all rights reserved
    Linux (R) is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
 
 References
 
    1. http://lwn.net/
    2. http://lwn.net/2002/0207/
    3. http://lwn.net/2002/0207/security.php3
    4. http://lwn.net/2002/0207/kernel.php3
    5. http://lwn.net/2002/0207/dists.php3
    6. http://lwn.net/2002/0207/devel.php3
    7. http://lwn.net/2002/0207/commerce.php3
    8. http://lwn.net/2002/0207/press.php3
    9. http://lwn.net/2002/0207/announce.php3
   10. http://lwn.net/2002/0207/bigpage.php3
   11. http://lwn.net/2002/0131/letters.php3
   12. mailto:letters@lwn.net
   13. http://www.lindows.com/signup
   14. http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/01/29/1635245&mode=thread
   15. http://baylink.pitas.com/
   16. http://www.eklektix.com/
   17. 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