ru.linux

 
 - RU.LINUX ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 From : Sergey Lentsov                       2:4615/71.10   27 Sep 2001  17:29:37
 To : All
 Subject : URL: http://www.lwn.net/2001/0927/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.
    September 27, 2001
    
    
 From:    Dylan Thurston <dpt@math.harvard.edu>
 To:      editors@lwn.net
 Subject: "The open source world"
 Date:    Thu, 20 Sep 2001 23:11:37 +0900
 
 To the editors of LWN,
 
 In the "On the Desktop" section of your September 20th issue, you write
 
    ... Somewhere out there, someone had found a business plan that
    worked. Somewhere, the realities of business hadn't crushed the
    genuine spirit and dedication found so often in the open source
    world. Somewhere, there is business success with Linux.
 
 You then proceed to mention two companies, HancomLinux and The Tolis
 Group.  HancomLinux (through theKompany) produces a few open source
 applications, but their focus is clearly on their proprietary
 products.  The Tolis Group, as far as I know, supports no open source
 projects.  In this respect, these two companies are no different from,
 say, Microsoft (which also supports some open source projects).
 Neither company can be considered part of "the open source world".
 
 Speaking for myself, I don't care about a "business success with
 Linux".  I care about the success of free software.
 
 Sincerely,
         Dylan Thurston
 
    
 From:    "Quick, Kevin" <Kevin.Quick@Surgient.com>
 To:      "'letters@lwn.net'" <letters@lwn.net>
 Subject: FW: Project UDI status
 Date:    Thu, 20 Sep 2001 15:41:37 -0500
 In regards to your "Linux History" article of 20 September 2001,
 I'd like to borrow the time-honored words coined by Mark Twain:
 
 The news of Project UDI's demise is greatly exaggerated!
 
 Project UDI is still an active group, working on both specifications and
 implementations.  These activities include maintaining a primary web site
 at [16]http://www.project-udi.org/, along with active code for Linux and other
 platforms via a SourceForge-hosted project
 ([17]http://projectudi.sourceforge.net/).
 
 More details on the Linux code port can be found at [18]http://www.stg.com/udi.
 
 We've published the 1.01 version of the specifications, which is the basis
 of current implementations, and we are in the process of submitting it to a
 formal standards body. UDI drivers and environments have been released from
 several companies, and in fact have been bundled in the latest releases of
 Caldera Open UNIX 8 and OpenServer.  Mail reflectors and teleconferences
 are used regularly to advance both the specification and the development
 code, and we have even held several interoperability events wherein UDI
 developers tested functional UDI drivers.  Other activities have been
 publicly mentioned as well: [19]http://www.project-udi.org/press_releases.html.
 
 While on the subject, I'd also like to comment on the quote that you
 referenced.  Unfortunately, the brief subcontext represented by the quote
 does not really communicate the message we were intending.  Project UDI
 does not depend on the Linux community, and (obviously) neither is the
 reverse true.  The conversation from which the quote was generated was a
 discussion of the relationship between the Linux community and Project UDI
 in which I was attempting to invite the Linux community to solve one of
 their recurring issues (the availability of good device drivers for
 whatever Linux kernel version was interesting to the sysadmin) by writing
 UDI drivers, which would also provide Project UDI with a broader base of
 existing drivers.  This was not an attempt to co-opt Linux developers to
 provide device support for proprietary Unix solutions, but rather an
 invitation for many of the developers to exhibit their proclaimed skills in
 this area.  Any IHV or system vendor who is interested in UDI can develop
 UDI driver solutions on their own (and several already have).  We also see
 UDI as a vehicle to help other open source OS projects. For example, a
 FreeBSD port is under way, which would allow them to leverage drivers
 originally written for proprietary OSes or Linux (or vice versa).
 
 While no code or project exists very well in a vacuum, the success of
 Project UDI is not intrinsically linked to the success of or acceptance by
 the Linux phenomenon.  Project UDI is, in fact, antithetical to the concept
 that an API or development environment is dependent on one single OS and is
 instead a focus on allowing drivers to drive devices and OS's to provide
 system utilization without constraining or uniquifying either one.  We
 certainly welcome the interest and assistance of the Linux community, and
 we feel that we have much to offer in return.  It's also important to note
 that several other OS environments have successful releases or in-progress
 developments of UDI environments.
 
 I'd invite you to download UDI for your Linux environment and to peruse our
 specifications.  We are an open community and welcome anyone with valid
 questions or an interest in working with us.
 
 Regards,
 Kevin Quick
 Project UDI Editor (and former Chairman)
 
    
 From:    tom poe <tompoe@renonevada.net>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Comment on "Pulling Back to IP"
 Date:    Fri, 21 Sep 2001 11:54:15 -0700
 Cc:      "DMCA" <dmca_discuss@lists.microshaft.org>
 
 Hello:  Your intro to the DMCA issue seems to be somewhat understated in my
 humble opinion:
 "The DMCA has stirred panic among some of our readers. While that bit of
 legislative muck isn't something to sneeze at, it isn't the cause of all
 changes to the open source world."  From: 9/20/2001 issue.
 
 I suspect, after reading Pamela Samuelson's article at:
 [20]http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5537/2028
 
 most people will not only be educated at the level necessary to appreciate
 the "shuddering and convulsing" that is occurring, but the importance of what
 is happening in our Free Country, and around the world, unlike anything
 before.  And while you're reading, I encourage everyone to take a moment, and
 imagine a world that begins with MS IPAQ devices, and ends with . . .   Well,
 I leave it to the readers to think about such a world.  A world made up of
 "approved" devices, Internet2, which carries only privileged information for
 governments and the chosen few, and ICANN domain controls yet to come.
 
 Tom
 
    
 From:    Jarkko Santala <jake@iki.fi>
 To:      <letters@lwn.net>
 Subject: Comment on 3D
 Date:    Fri, 21 Sep 2001 20:18:28 +0300 (EET DST)
 
 Hi all,
 
 Something came into my mind when I was reading the front page article
 where 3D acceleration was mentioned. You pointed out that for the desktop
 itself 3D is completely unrequired, which is true.
 
 But think of this: a user has to choose between platforms A and B, where
 platform A will run her desktop applications like word processing but 3D
 acceleration which is need for games is not supported, whereas platform B
 does an equally good job on the desktop and also supports all the latest
 and fastest bleeding edge 3D graphics adapters.
 
 Which one would you choose?
 
         -jake
 
 ps. the movie industry and other professionals who need fast 3D in their
 work are another story altogether...
 
 --
 Jarkko Santala <jake@iki.fi>       [21]http://www.iki.fi/jake/
 System Administrator               Cell. +358 40 720 4512
    
 From:    billy foss <fossinrtp@netscape.net>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Digital Copyright Solutions
 Date:    Fri, 21 Sep 2001 01:52:49 -0400
 
 Has the open source community presented an open alternative for digital
 rights management?  It would seem that the open source community would
 respect the licenses given by digital media creators.  We rely on
 copyright law to keep the GPL freedoms.
 
 Given the failures of proprietary security methods maybe the MPAA,
 Adobe, Disney, etc could be persuaded to consider an open solution.  An
 open solution would provide the best oppertunity to fix any weaknesses
 before a full implementation.  Of course, the content owners would have
 to sponsor some company to design and implement a solution.  They should
 also fund third-party studies of the algorithm and implementation to
 ensure security.  If the digital media is important enough to sue any
 possible threat, then it should be important enough to fund the research
 to do it right.
 
 The problem with the current approach of preventing research into
 breaking encryption and digital rights management is that it only stops
 the good guys looking for bugs to discover. It does not stop the bad
 guys from looking for bugs to exploit.  Both will find the bugs, but
 only one side will tell you about it nicely.
 
 Billy Foss
    
 From:    sewalton@aep.com
 To:      netadmin@TechRepublic.com
 Subject: Article comment
 Date:    Wed, 26 Sep 2001 15:52:30 -0400
 Cc:      lwn@lwn.net
 
 John McCormick's article entitled "By the numbers: Comparing Windows
 security to Linux" details some claims that don't add up.  First of all, he
 does not include severities with the defects.  Severity is very important
 for proper comparison.  Similarly, it's not clear that he's only looking at
 vulnerabilities (not just bugs).  Vulnerabilities are the primary concern
 to a net admin, security officer, and CIO.  Also, the numbers he getting do
 not reflect the whole system on Windows.  Linux is a kernel, so you have to
 evaluate an entire package or distribution for vulnerability.  If a Linux
 system just had the kernel and no other tools (like as in a NAT firewall),
 you would see far fewer vulnerabilities.  Windows, on the other hand,
 breaks out many functions into tools and services.  So, to get the whole
 picture, you have to search on the entire package, including both the OS
 and the tools.
 
 If you use the ICAT website ([22]http://icat.nist.gov/icat.cfm), which draws
 its info from several vulnerability databases, you get different numbers
 than what Mr. McCormick presents:
 |-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
 | Platform  | Within 3  | Within 6  | Within 12 | Within 24 |    All    |
 |(Severity) |  Months   |  Months   |  Months   |  Months   |           |
 |-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
 |  Microsoft|    20     |    26     |    58     |    95     |    130    |
 |     (High)|           |           |           |           |           |
 |-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
 |  Microsoft|    29     |    38     |    84     |    163    |    229    |
 |   (Medium)|           |           |           |           |           |
 |-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
 |      Linux|    12     |    13     |    44     |    96     |    146    |
 |     (High)|           |           |           |           |           |
 |-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
 |      Linux|    11     |    15     |    50     |    86     |    124    |
 |   (Medium)|           |           |           |           |           |
 |-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
 These numbers are cumulative and do not reflect the number of outstanding
 defects.  The primary advantage of OpenSource is the very fast turn around
 times -- days as compared to Microsoft's months.
 ----------------------------------------------
 Sean Walton
 Senior IT Consultant
 Author of "Linux Socket Programming"
 American Electric Power
    
    
                                                                          
    
    [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/2001/0927/
    4. http://lwn.net/2001/0927/security.php3
    5. http://lwn.net/2001/0927/kernel.php3
    6. http://lwn.net/2001/0927/dists.php3
    7. http://lwn.net/2001/0927/desktop.php3
    8. http://lwn.net/2001/0927/devel.php3
    9. http://lwn.net/2001/0927/commerce.php3
   10. http://lwn.net/2001/0927/press.php3
   11. http://lwn.net/2001/0927/announce.php3
   12. http://lwn.net/2001/0927/history.php3
   13. http://lwn.net/2001/0927/bigpage.php3
   14. http://lwn.net/2001/0920/letters.php3
   15. mailto:letters@lwn.net
   16. http://www.project-udi.org/
   17. http://projectudi.sourceforge.net/
   18. http://www.stg.com/udi
   19. http://www.project-udi.org/press_releases.html
   20. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5537/2028
   21. http://www.iki.fi/jake/
   22. http://icat.nist.gov/icat.cfm
   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