From owner-freebsd-advocacy Mon Jun 18 5:42:36 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from stox.sa.enteract.com (stox.sa.enteract.com [207.229.132.161]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D786737B401 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 05:42:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stox@stox.sa.enteract.com) Received: (from stox@localhost) by stox.sa.enteract.com (8.11.4/8.11.3) id f5ICgNt28382 for freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 07:42:23 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from stox) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 07:42:23 -0500 (CDT) Organization: Imaginary Landscape, LLC. From: "Kenneth P. Stox" To: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Microsoft and FreeBSD, as reported in the Wall Street Journal Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG http://public.wsj.com/news/hmc/sb992819157437237260.htm ---------------------------------- E-Mail: Kenneth P. Stox Date: 18-Jun-01 Time: 07:40:20 ---------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-advocacy Mon Jun 18 9:22:38 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [206.29.169.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B7C437B407 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:22:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from tedm.placo.com (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [206.29.168.154]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f5IGMLl65317; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:22:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: "Kenneth P. Stox" , Subject: RE: Microsoft and FreeBSD, as reported in the Wall Street Journal Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:22:20 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c0f812$d97e3280$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Yes, this is exactly the position that I recently argued here. However, the article does have one major flaw. In it, it says: "Microsoft, though, hasn't previously suggested that there were benign forms of open-source software, and while singling out Linux for special criticism, has tended to criticize all open-source with the same broad brush." This is untrue. Craig Mundie's comments were very explicit in that Microsoft does support non-GPLd open source projects. Granted, none of the major news organizations picked up on this, but if you go to the complete text of his speech and READ it, here at: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp you will find the phrase: "Finally, the fact that we believe strongly in the value of IP protection doesn’t mean that we discount the importance of contributing to and supporting the public domain of knowledge as well. We believe that interaction between the public domain and the IP-based sector needs to be based on mutual responsibility and respect" From Microsoft's point of view (also from GNU's point of view) the BSD License _is_ public domain, as is the X license and other licenses of it's type. Mundie even obiquely refers to the Mach OS with a phrase later: "..followed work done at pre-eminent institutions such as Carnegie Mellon..." Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG >[mailto:owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Kenneth P. Stox >Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 5:42 AM >To: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG >Subject: Microsoft and FreeBSD, as reported in the Wall Street Journal > > > >http://public.wsj.com/news/hmc/sb992819157437237260.htm > >---------------------------------- >E-Mail: Kenneth P. Stox >Date: 18-Jun-01 >Time: 07:40:20 >---------------------------------- > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-advocacy Mon Jun 18 13:19:24 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from web14204.mail.yahoo.com (web14204.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.172.146]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6C7ED37B403 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:19:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from beachboywu@yahoo.com) Message-ID: <20010618201922.93639.qmail@web14204.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [206.47.244.59] by web14204.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 04:19:22 CST Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 04:19:22 +0800 (CST) From: =?big5?q?ChunMing=20Wu?= Subject: Ask a question.. Thanks.. To: FreeBSD-advocacy@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=big5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi, I'd like to ask a question. Currently, I am doing a report that evaluates and compares openBSD and Linux (with the NSA security extensions) as a potential platform for a VPN gateway/router. I will be using IPSec as security protocol. I'd be appreciated if you can tell me which one of these operating systems is more secure in general and why. Thanks for the help... Regards, Tony Wu _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? µn°O§K¶Oªº @yahoo.com ¤¤¤å¹q¤l¶l¥ó @ http://chinese.mail.yahoo.com Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://chinese.mail.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-advocacy Mon Jun 18 13:37:47 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from blackhelicopters.org (geburah.blackhelicopters.org [209.69.178.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C4C37B401 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:37:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mwlucas@blackhelicopters.org) Received: (from mwlucas@localhost) by blackhelicopters.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA33112; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:37:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mwlucas) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:37:32 -0400 From: Michael Lucas To: Nik Clayton Cc: Szilveszter Adam , freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD User Group Tips Message-ID: <20010618163732.A33060@blackhelicopters.org> References: <20010613120321.A92103@superhero.org> <000901c0f566$845e0f40$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <20010615105306.E1744@petra.hos.u-szeged.hu> <0106151129530X.37769@clan.nothing-going-on.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <0106151129530X.37769@clan.nothing-going-on.org>; from nik@nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk on Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 11:29:53AM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 11:29:53AM +0100, Nik Clayton wrote: > Most definitely -- even a "Here is how I did it, it might not work for you" > document is a great start, because it provides something that can be > incrementally improved. There have never been a shortage of -doc folks willing to DocBookize plain text files. I made this point at BSDCon last year, but it's worth repeating: How to write documentation in 2 steps: 1) Write it so it doesn't suck 2) If it sucks, rewrite so it sucks less The cooperative FreeBSD documentation process make part 2 *very* easy. Given a technical clue, any number of folks are willing to provide, say, grammar. ==ml -- Michael Lucas mwlucas@blackhelicopters.org http://www.blackhelicopters.org/~mwlucas/ Big Scary Daemons: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-advocacy Mon Jun 18 14: 4:25 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mailsrv.otenet.gr (mailsrv.otenet.gr [195.170.0.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F70337B401 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:04:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from hades.hell.gr (patr530-a060.otenet.gr [212.205.215.60]) by mailsrv.otenet.gr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5IL48324783; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 00:04:08 +0300 (EEST) Received: (from charon@localhost) by hades.hell.gr (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f5IL47903865; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 00:04:07 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 00:04:07 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: "Kenneth P. Stox" , freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Microsoft and FreeBSD, as reported in the Wall Street Journal Message-ID: <20010619000407.A3601@hades.hell.gr> References: <000001c0f812$d97e3280$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <000001c0f812$d97e3280$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>; from tedm@toybox.placo.com on Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 09:22:20AM -0700 X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3A 75 52 EB F1 58 56 0D - C5 B8 21 B6 1B 5E 4A C2 X-URL: http://students.ceid.upatras.gr/~keramida/index.html Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 09:22:20AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > Yes, this is exactly the position that I recently argued here. > > However, the article does have one major flaw. In it, it says: > > "Microsoft, though, hasn't previously suggested that there were > benign forms of open-source software, and while singling out Linux > for special criticism, has tended to criticize all open-source with > the same broad brush." > This is untrue. Craig Mundie's comments were very explicit in that > Microsoft does support non-GPLd open source projects. Granted, none > of the major news organizations picked up on this, but if you go to > the complete text of his speech and READ it, here at: > > http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp Oh, but he does refer to 'Open Source Software': The commercial software model is just one model being utilized in the software industry today. It is important to take into account the Open Source Software movement as an example of an alternative model. Some of his comments are targeted towards Open Source in general: The OSS development model leads to a strong possibility of unhealthy "forking" of a code base, resulting in the development of multiple incompatible versions of programs, weakened interoperability, product instability, and hindering businesses ability to strategically plan for the future. Furthermore, it has inherent security risks and can force intellectual property into the public domain. Yet, he does change the tone and comments that he makes to target GPL, and ony GPL, after a while: Some of the most successful OSS technology is licensed under the GNU General Public License or GPL. The GPL ... The fact that he *does* begin his article speaking about Open Source in general though, is important. No, he does not explicitly mention BSD. Nowhere in his article, the word BSD can be found. However, bashing Open Source in general (even if after a while, it turns out to a GPL bashing contest), does harm to all Open Source projects, in my humble opinion. Therefore, that other article, at < http://public.wsj.com/news/hmc/sb992819157437237260.htm > is not very wrong when it says that "Microsoft ... has tended to criticize all open-source with the same broad brush". -giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-advocacy Mon Jun 18 14:13: 8 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from nwlynx.network-lynx.net (nwlynx.network-lynx.net [63.122.185.99]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D27E37B403 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:13:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Don@Silver-Lynx.com) Received: from Silver-Lynx.com (doze-1.network-lynx.net [63.122.185.106]) by nwlynx.network-lynx.net (8.11.1/8.9.3/Who.Cares) with ESMTP id f5ILCWR78640; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:12:32 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from Don@Silver-Lynx.com) Message-ID: <3B2E6EBE.62EFBAC7@Silver-Lynx.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:12:30 -0600 From: Don Wilde X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: Ted Mittelstaedt , "Kenneth P. Stox" , freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Microsoft and FreeBSD, as reported in the Wall Street Journal References: <000001c0f812$d97e3280$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <20010619000407.A3601@hades.hell.gr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > is not very wrong when it says that "Microsoft ... has tended to > criticize all open-source with the same broad brush". > > -giorgos > Remember that it was Bill Gates who destroyed the first Open Source movement with his EULA's. -- Don Wilde http://www.Silver-Lynx.com Silver Lynx Embedded Microsystems Architects 2218 Southern Bl. Ste. 12 Rio Rancho, NM 87124 505-891-4175 FAX 891-4185 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-advocacy Mon Jun 18 15:16:41 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from odin.acuson.com (odin.acuson.com [157.226.230.71]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B972737B406 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:16:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from djohnson@acuson.com) Received: from acuson.com ([157.226.46.72]) by odin.acuson.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.54) with ESMTP id AAA3335; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:22:40 -0700 Message-ID: <3B2E7DB7.C0BF8429@acuson.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:16:23 -0700 From: David Johnson Organization: Acuson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Microsoft and FreeBSD, as reported in the Wall Street Journal References: <000001c0f812$d97e3280$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <20010619000407.A3601@hades.hell.gr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > The fact that he *does* begin his article speaking about Open Source > in general though, is important. No, he does not explicitly mention > BSD. Nowhere in his article, the word BSD can be found. However, > bashing Open Source in general (even if after a while, it turns out to > a GPL bashing contest), does harm to all Open Source projects, in my > humble opinion. This is very important to note, and I'm glad you made the effort to clarify it. Microsoft is using smoke-and-mirrors and classic FUD to discredit all of open source, including the BSD license and all software under it. They took a part of open source and labelled it as the whole. The public won't know the difference, but Microsoft sure did. I'm already seeing rumblings of Microsoft's next attack, which will utilize a divide-and-conquer strategy. Pit the various OSS advocates against each other. This is very easy to imagine. Have Microsoft come out with a clarification of their OSS stance, praising the BSD license while at the same time condeming the GPL. If you think the rift is bad now, wait until Bill Gates publicly chooses sides. David To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-advocacy Tue Jun 19 1:41:16 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [206.29.169.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6060937B403 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:41:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from tedm.placo.com (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [206.29.168.154]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f5J8eol67819; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:40:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: "David Johnson" , "Giorgos Keramidas" Cc: Subject: RE: Microsoft and FreeBSD, as reported in the Wall Street Journal Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:40:48 -0700 Message-ID: <003601c0f89b$8a362f00$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <3B2E7DB7.C0BF8429@acuson.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG >[mailto:owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of David Johnson >Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 3:16 PM >To: Giorgos Keramidas >Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG >Subject: Re: Microsoft and FreeBSD, as reported in the Wall Street >Journal > > >Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > >> The fact that he *does* begin his article speaking about Open Source >> in general though, is important. No, he does not explicitly mention >> BSD. Nowhere in his article, the word BSD can be found. However, >> bashing Open Source in general (even if after a while, it turns out to >> a GPL bashing contest), does harm to all Open Source projects, in my >> humble opinion. > >This is very important to note, and I'm glad you made the effort to >clarify it. Microsoft is using smoke-and-mirrors and classic FUD to >discredit all of open source, including the BSD license and all software >under it. They took a part of open source and labelled it as the whole. >The public won't know the difference, but Microsoft sure did. > But, many in the GPL community have already tried taking GPL and labelling it as the Whole Open Source so Microsoft isn't doing anything that hasn't already been attempted by some people in GPL. Anyway, Crag doesen't start out bashing Open Source. (the speech is here: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp read it for yourself) What he starts out doing is bashing business models that give away their intellectual property for free. In case you missed it, the FreeBSD Project is not a business model. Even Red Hat is not really a business model that does this - because they don't create Linux they just repackage it. In fact the businesses that really match this description are all the failed dot-coms. Craig even says this! Anyway, the entire first part of Craig's speech is basically a lead in to rah-rahing the Microsoft.NET strategy, (whatever that is supposed to be) It's the same old bullcrap of how everyone's going to make a million dollars from taking their businesses onto the Internet, and by the way there's this neat Microsoft software you just need to have to do it. Oh, and yes you probably read about all the failed dot coms that already tried this and it didn't work, but guess what we have this new an improved idea that you should actually charge people on the Internet for your products instead of givig them away. Whoop-de-do, there's not anything here that a C-average business student couldn't have told you. In short, if you set out to create a commercial entity that is supposed to create products to make a profit, then you should charge real money to the customers of those products. Then, his speech moves into a bunch of rah-rahing the Microsoft Shared Source. Nothing new here, he just restates the program that they have already been doing for some time through the universities. So, basically what we have here is his not only does his speech start out but but a significant portion of it is a bunch of "rah, rah, buy Microsoft" There's no Open Source bashing there. The reason for it being this way, of course is that the first part is for the general populace because most people today are so God-damned lazy that they won't even read entirely through a 3000 word speech posted on the Internet, and in the audience of people that were listening to the speech most of them have fallen asleep by now. It's not until you get deep in the speech that the Open Source bashing starts up. But, there is only a SINGLE _general_ bash at Open Source, which is that it might create a lot of unhealthy forking. This is, of course, rediculous because that hasn't happened, and furthermore if you want to talk about forking, just look at all the different versions of Windows out there now that developers need to keep track of when they develop. Right after the fork bash, though, is when Microsoft starts bashing the GPL. And, far from what you say about taking part of open source and labelling it the whole, Craig takes pains to separate GPL and Open Source with phrases like: "..open source software based on the GPL.." Then, he moves on to this surprising statement: "..Finally, the fact that we believe strongly in the value of IP protection doesn’t mean that we discount the importance of contributing to and supporting the public domain of knowledge as well. We believe that interaction between the public domain and the IP-based sector needs to be based on mutual responsibility and respect..." Now, I'm sorry but the BSD license _is_ the "public domain of knowledge", despite what columnists and pundits say. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.. remember that! There's no operational difference between what people MEAN when they talk about "Public Domain" and what the BSD license says. Craig even says this much when he then goes on to say: "..There is an important and longstanding tradition for the public domain of knowledge, or "intellectual commons." .." Note that he isn't using the legal terminology of the capitalized "Public Domain" he is talking about "the public domain of knowledge" Craig is speaking to the people that use the term Public Domain to mean not only the BSD license but the X license as well as their own made-up licenses that are basically copies of the BSD one. >I'm already seeing rumblings of Microsoft's next attack, which will >utilize a divide-and-conquer strategy. Pit the various OSS advocates >against each other. This is very easy to imagine. Have Microsoft come >out with a clarification of their OSS stance, praising the BSD license >while at the same time condeming the GPL. If you think the rift is bad >now, wait until Bill Gates publicly chooses sides. > Consider this: in a fight between Linux/GPL and Microsoft, who would benefit more by the BSD people siding with the GPL people against Microsoft? Would it be BSD, or would it be...GPL? And, do you honestly think that Microsoft cares one way or another what side that BSD chooses to support? How would splitting off us from GPL help Microsoft? I know it's humbling but we just don't represnt that big a chunk of the market compared to Linux. Expending effort splitting us off won't gain them the same advantage that spending that effort directly fighting the GPL would. In short, it is clear that the GPL is what's under attack here. It's also fairly clear that Microsoft has taken some pains to do the dance between condemming the GPL and congradulating BSD - while they don't come right out and say "BSD" in Craig's speech, it's very clear that this is what they mean if you read between the lines. All the Wall Street article does is confirm this. What is less clear is how will siding with GPL benefit BSD. It's quite obvious that what people like Kirk McKusick fear is what your saying here - that when Microsoft finishes off GPL that they are going to turn around on BSD. That is why he is perpetuating the myth that Microsoft isn't discriminating between BSD and Linux. But, if you look closely at what Microsoft is saying you will find that they are indeed currently discriminating between BSD and GPL. I don't believe that it's in BSD's interest to join forces with Microsoft against the GPL (although I can't say the same for many of the GPL advocates, most of whom don't seem to like to admit that BSD exists) but I also think that it's less clear that there's benefit to BSD to immediately jump in and side with GPL against Microsoft. It's very clear that joining GPL will benefit GPL, but I simply don't see much benefit to BSD. The idea that Microsoft is going to "finish off the GPL" is pretty rediculous to start with, in fact by fighting against GPL Microsoft is giving a tremendous amount of free advertising to Linux that they never would have gotten, and also besides that it's giving a veneer of legitimacy to GPL. Everyone expects Microsoft to rail against their competitors and Microsoft has been doing it for so long now that most people don't put the credibility into Microsoft bashing a competitor that they used to do. Fundamentally, Linux is going to turn into Microsoft's Vietnam. Obviously they hate GPL and feel duty bound to fight against it - but it's an unwinnable battle that is going to suck their energy for years because there is simply no central corporation that they can force into bankruptcy. Ultimately all the GPL bashing that Microsoft is doing is simply going to help convince some people and companies to look more closely at BSD. Consider one more thing too - the computer industry has had a history of lifting the God of standardization above all others. In the server game first it was IBM then Novell then Microsoft and now it's looking more and more like Linux. Always, we overthrow one Dark Lord and sit another baby on the throne that in 10 years just grows into another Dark Lord that has to be overthrown. It's fucking stupid. What we should be aiming for is a market that is split 20% Windows, 20% BSD, 20% Linux, 20% MacOS and 20% Other where no one company has the capability of dominating the industry. This would by far be the most healthy and would fundamentally promote competition and would pour interface standards into stone so we wouldn't have all these stupid incompatabilities. If Microsoft can cut 30% of the users off of Linux and push them over to BSD then they will have done more good for the market than anyone could do. >David > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-advocacy Tue Jun 19 3:32:20 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from nef.ens.fr (nef.ens.fr [129.199.96.32]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32D7237B414 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 03:32:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Rahul.Siddharthan@lpt.ens.fr) Received: from corto.lpt.ens.fr (corto.lpt.ens.fr [129.199.122.2]) by nef.ens.fr (8.10.1/1.01.28121999) with ESMTP id f5JAW9665264 ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 12:32:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from (rsidd@localhost) by corto.lpt.ens.fr (8.9.3/jtpda-5.3.1) id MAA58053 ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 12:33:06 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 12:33:06 +0200 From: Rahul Siddharthan To: ChunMing Wu Cc: FreeBSD-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Ask a question.. Thanks.. Message-ID: <20010619123306.K50546@lpt.ens.fr> Mail-Followup-To: ChunMing Wu , FreeBSD-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20010618201922.93639.qmail@web14204.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010618201922.93639.qmail@web14204.mail.yahoo.com>; from beachboywu@yahoo.com on Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 04:19:22AM +0800 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.4-STABLE i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG ChunMing Wu said on Jun 19, 2001 at 04:19:22: > I'd be appreciated if you can tell me which one of > these operating systems is more secure in general and > why. Thanks for the help... Why OpenBSD will never be as secure as Linux, http://www.securityportal.com/closet/closet20010509.html Why Linux will never be as secure as OpenBSD (same author), http://www.securityportal.com/closet/closet20010516.html Overall, OpenBSD has a vastly better track record on security, but (I think) lacks the equivalent of the NSA extensions. Eventually I think security depends more on the administrator than on the system itself (follow security bulletins, apply patches when needed, etc). But going by past history you'll need to apply fewer patches with OpenBSD... R To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-advocacy Tue Jun 19 11: 6:49 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from odin.acuson.com (odin.acuson.com [157.226.230.71]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7469137B401 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 11:06:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from djohnson@acuson.com) Received: from acuson.com ([157.226.46.72]) by odin.acuson.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.54) with ESMTP id AAA1802; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 11:12:48 -0700 Message-ID: <3B2F94A9.A539BB45@acuson.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 11:06:33 -0700 From: David Johnson Organization: Acuson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Microsoft and FreeBSD, as reported in the Wall Street Journal References: <003601c0f89b$8a362f00$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > But, many in the GPL community have already tried taking GPL and labelling > it as the Whole Open Source so Microsoft isn't doing anything that hasn't > already been attempted by some people in GPL. There's malcontents and rabble-rousers in every faction. We've got enough of our own people saying that the GPL isn't truly free (and I tend to sympathize). Numerically they've got more people bashing us then we do bashing them, but percentage-wise it may be equal. > I know it's humbling but we just don't represnt that big a chunk of the > market compared to Linux. Expending effort splitting us off won't gain them > the same advantage that > spending that effort directly fighting the GPL would. We don't represent much in the way of market share. But we represent a hell of a lot in terms of philosophy, ideas and ethics. Open Source licensing has two basic licenses: copyleft and unencumbered. The GPL is the standard bearer for copyleft, and BSD is the standard bearer for unencumbered. Creating a split between these two poles would be devastating. Right now the majority of developers aren't taking sides. Most currently seem to prefer the GPL, but not because of philosophy. The most common answer to "what license should I use" is "use whatever one fits your needs". Right now the the "battle" between GPL and BSD is only fought by a very small handful of zealots. If the general rank and file start taking the view that it's an "us versus them" war, then Open Source will split. Think about this: the Open Source software that poses the biggest threat to Microsoft isn't Linux. It's Apache. It's the only software that they've lost market share to. Copyleft threatens Microsoft on ideological grounds. Unencumbered threatens Microsoft on pragmatic grounds. Both are real threats to them. David To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-advocacy Tue Jun 19 15:14:16 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from ns2.via-net-works.net.ar (ns2.via-net-works.net.ar [200.10.100.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28D537B401 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:14:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fernando@cursosvirtuales.com.ar) Received: from cursosvirtuales.com.ar (uucp@localhost) by ns2.via-net-works.net.ar (8.9.3/8.9.3) with UUCP id SAA18555 for advocacy@freebsd.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:45:26 -0300 (GMT) Received: (from fpscha@localhost) by funes.schapachnik.com.ar (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f5JLo8l00702 for advocacy@freebsd.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:50:08 -0300 (ART) (envelope-from fernando@cursosvirtuales.com.ar) X-Authentication-Warning: funes.schapachnik.com.ar: fpscha set sender to fernando@cursosvirtuales.com.ar using -f Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:50:08 -0300 From: "Fernando P . Schapachnik" To: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Interesting... Message-ID: <20010619185008.E441@funes.schapachnik.com.ar> Reply-To: "Fernando P . Schapachnik" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-OS: FreeBSD 4.3 - http://www.freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG http://www.acm.org/technews/articles/2001-3/0618m.html#item1 Somebody registered might want to post it to daemon-news :) Fernando Schapachnik To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-advocacy Tue Jun 19 15:16:19 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from q.closedsrc.org (ip233.gte15.rb1.bel.nwlink.com [209.20.244.233]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0191C37B406 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:16:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lplist@closedsrc.org) Received: by q.closedsrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1003) id 9EFA355407; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:03:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by q.closedsrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F58551610; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:03:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:03:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Linh Pham To: "Fernando P . Schapachnik" Cc: Subject: Re: Interesting... In-Reply-To: <20010619185008.E441@funes.schapachnik.com.ar> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 2001-06-19, Fernando P . Schapachnik scribbled: # http://www.acm.org/technews/articles/2001-3/0618m.html#item1 This topic has already been covered by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article and has already been posted on several sites, including Daemon News (more specficially, Daily Daemon News) and Slashdot. -- Linh Pham [lplist@closedsrc.org] // 404b - Brain not found To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-advocacy Tue Jun 19 15:34: 2 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from ns2.via-net-works.net.ar (ns2.via-net-works.net.ar [200.10.100.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED5837B406 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:33:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fernando@schapachnik.com.ar) Received: from schapachnik.com.ar (uucp@localhost) by ns2.via-net-works.net.ar (8.9.3/8.9.3) with UUCP id TAA22434; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:19:59 -0300 (GMT) Received: (from fpscha@localhost) by funes.schapachnik.com.ar (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f5JMPRu00817; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:25:27 -0300 (ART) (envelope-from fernando@schapachnik.com.ar) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:25:27 -0300 From: "Fernando P . Schapachnik" To: Linh Pham Cc: "Fernando P . Schapachnik" , advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Interesting... Message-ID: <20010619192527.A805@funes.schapachnik.com.ar> References: <20010619185008.E441@funes.schapachnik.com.ar> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from lplist@closedsrc.org on Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 03:03:01PM -0700 X-OS: FreeBSD 4.3 - http://www.freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG En un mensaje anterior, Linh Pham escribió: > On 2001-06-19, Fernando P . Schapachnik scribbled: > > # http://www.acm.org/technews/articles/2001-3/0618m.html#item1 > > This topic has already been covered by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) > article and has already been posted on several sites, including Daemon > News (more specficially, Daily Daemon News) and Slashdot. Great then! Sorry for the noise... Fernando P. Schapachnik fernando@schapachnik.com.ar To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-advocacy Tue Jun 19 23:33:25 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [206.29.169.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8655037B401 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 23:33:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from tedm.placo.com (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [206.29.168.154]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f5K6XBl71093; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 23:33:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: "David Johnson" Cc: Subject: RE: Microsoft and FreeBSD, as reported in the Wall Street Journal Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 23:33:10 -0700 Message-ID: <000c01c0f952$dfa76d20$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <3B2F94A9.A539BB45@acuson.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG >[mailto:owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of David Johnson >Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 11:07 AM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG >Subject: Re: Microsoft and FreeBSD, as reported in the Wall Street >Journal > > >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> But, many in the GPL community have already tried taking GPL and >labelling >> it as the Whole Open Source so Microsoft isn't doing anything that hasn't >> already been attempted by some people in GPL. > >There's malcontents and rabble-rousers in every faction. We've got >enough of our own people saying that the GPL isn't truly free (and I >tend to sympathize). Numerically they've got more people bashing us then >we do bashing them, but percentage-wise it may be equal. > >> I know it's humbling but we just don't represnt that big a chunk of the >> market compared to Linux. Expending effort splitting us off >won't gain them >> the same advantage that >> spending that effort directly fighting the GPL would. > >We don't represent much in the way of market share. But we represent a >hell of a lot in terms of philosophy, ideas and ethics. Open Source You are arguing that _Microsoft_ cares about anyone's _ethics_? :-) Seriously, lots of people have philosophies, ideas and ethics. The world is filled with them. But Microsoft only cares about the _actions_ of people that are threatening their software sales. >licensing has two basic licenses: copyleft and unencumbered. The GPL is >the standard bearer for copyleft, and BSD is the standard bearer for >unencumbered. > >Creating a split between these two poles would be devastating. Right now That would frankly be impossible as long as BSD uses gcc. Hell, Wall Street makes a big fragging deal over Microsoft using BSD for a few minor things here and there. Can you imagine the story if BSD started actively bashing the GPL on philosophical grounds of license differentiation? I could see them now: "FreeBSD's criticism of GPL Doesen't Stop Them From Building The Entire BSD Software System Using It" > >Think about this: the Open Source software that poses the biggest threat >to Microsoft isn't Linux. It's Apache. > It's the only software that >they've lost market share to. I disagree with this. You can't lose market share you never had. Microsoft's IIS has not had a history of 60%, then 50%, then 40%, then 30% and so forth falling market share compared to Apache. It started out at 1/2 of one percent. Arguments that "Well if Apache didn't exist then IIS would rule the webserver market" are stretches of imagination. IIS didn't even have memory separation of virtual webservers until Windows 2K and the IIS for that. I don't know if you've ever worked at a ISP that fields virtual hosts on NT, but I do and I can assure you that NT/IIS is far, far less profitable than even the worse UNIX webserver ever was. (and we started out with NetScrape's commercial server, not Apache) This is why there's so much work getting ASP and Front Page Extensions to run under Apache. I don't see anyone working to get mod_cgi to run under IIS, there's little interest in using IIS for anything serious. If you want to look at lost sales there's 3 major areas that I can point to where it's _clear_ that Microsoft has lost sales, they are: 1) mailservers. There are lots of people that switched away from proprietary Exchange servers and went to POP3/SMTP using Microsoft's mail clients, rather than pay for yet another Exchange upgrade. Consider that Exchange 5.0 and prior gave spammers wet dreams because there was no way to stop blind relaying through it. 2) Samba. It's clear that basic File & Print services are under a fundamental attack from Samba, because you do not have to purchase large numbers of expensive CAL's to run Samba. This is one reason why Microsoft is pushing Active Directory so much because AD is an unnecessairly complicated, proprietary, additional layer that is not needed on 99% of all installations. A Samba server is equivalent to an NT server without AD in File & Print, and I think that this is one reason that so many IT shops are going very slow in deploying Win2K, particularly overseas. 3) Internet Access. For years, in fact until Win2K, Microsoft's answer to an Internet Gateway device was to use Microsoft Proxy Server on NT 4 They had no address translation of any kind. Proxy servers are annoying and require a lot of expensive (in admin time, not direct cost) work loading Proxy Client on the clients, plus Proxy Client interferes with some network apps and greatly complicates troubleshooting network problems on a network. Plus that, it takes at least 256MB of ram on a Microsoft Proxy server for it to run at any halfway decent speed and most shops are cheap, particularly 3 years ago when Proxy first came out and were trying to run it on 64MB of ram wherupon it ran slow as molassas. There have been many, many shops that 3 years ago started out running Proxy then ditched it, and replaced it with LinkSys routers, or Win2K+NAT, or Linux+NAT. All 3 of those areas are ones that Microsoft _had_ market share that they see slipping to Linux. They've taken some defensive measures, like putting the kitchen sink into Exchange, creating Active Directory, and putting NAT into Win2K, but these don't stop the slipping. Even worse than that is that it's forcing them to replace profitable software lines with non-revenue generating ones - when they put NAT into Win2K they didn't charge anything more for it - but Win2K NAT basically killed the Microsoft Proxy Server which they were selling for $2K a pop. >Copyleft threatens Microsoft on >ideological grounds. Unencumbered threatens Microsoft on pragmatic >grounds. Both are real threats to them. > Microsoft has never cared one whit for any of those threats. What they are trying to do is build a profit model based on continual upgrades of software. For this to work means they need lots, and lots of _different_ software products, all going down that same 2-year upgrade cycle, and ALL generating revenue. Microsoft does not generate revenue for product lines like Internet Explorer because there is no profit there, thanks to Netscape. Netscape forced Microsoft to release a software product line that they were unable to sell, thus Microsoft put them out of business with illegal monopolistic practices. To do this meant forgoing all revenue from the IE product line. With Linux, Microsoft sees more and more add-on products going the same way the web browser went. Sure they are worried about Linux servers replacing Win2K servers, but this pales in comparison to their real fear. What fundamentally threatens them is Linux ruining their ability to come out with new "accessory" software products that they are able to charge money for, because free versions are already available under Linux. It's like service on a car. When a car dealership sells you a new car, they make most of their money from you continuing to bring it back to them for service. (which you do to mantain the warranty) When Microsoft sells you Win2K, they make most of their money from you buying the accessories like Proxy, Exchange, SQL Server, CAL's, etc. etc. If Linux already has not only the base OS but all the other crap, all for free, it's the "other stuff" is what is killing Microsoft's business model, not Linux itself. What they care about is the practical aspect of when they see the needle on the money graph starting to drop down because of all of this real software out there doing this, not ideological reasons why it's happening. They care about the results of the ideology, not the ideology itself. Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-advocacy Thu Jun 21 23: 3:42 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from saturn.cs.uml.edu (saturn.cs.uml.edu [129.63.8.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95B7D37B401 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:03:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from acahalan@saturn.cs.uml.edu) Received: (from acahalan@localhost) by saturn.cs.uml.edu (8.11.0/8.11.2) id f5M62MG421878; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:02:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:02:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200106220602.f5M62MG421878@saturn.cs.uml.edu> From: "Albert D. Cahalan" To: beachboywu@yahoo.com Cc: FreeBSD-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ask a question.. Thanks.. Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Currently, I am doing a report that evaluates and > compares openBSD and Linux (with the NSA security > extensions) It is interesting that you compare OpenBSD and Linux on a FreeBSD mailing list. > as a potential platform for a VPN gateway/router. > I will be using IPSec as security protocol. > I'd be appreciated if you can tell me which one of > these operating systems is more secure in general and > why. Thanks for the help... OpenBSD: trys to eliminate all holes seLinux: trys to keep "successful" attacks contained Once an attacker gets root on an OpenBSD box, game over. You lost. Your box is owned. Still, it's hard to crack an OpenBSD box. But then again, there was a root-level exploit a week or two ago. It only takes one hole you know. The seLinux box is full of holes, and everybody knows it. They have wu-FTPd even. So the attacker gets root, but with seLinux they don't own you. The damage is contained to specific roles and/or security levels. It is possible to have a root login that can edit files in /etc, while at the same time having an attacker with root being blocked from doing this. The system might require vi for editing /etc/inittab, but require emacs for editing /etc/lilo.conf. This is kernel-enforced; you can't escape it with a debugger. Think about it this way: do you build a huge oil tanker ship with one strong hull (OpenBSD style) or do you build it with a double hull and many separate compartments inside (seLinux style) to make sure a single hole won't dump out all the oil? Do you believe that Theo has finally fixed every last bug? I guess this boils down to optimism (OpenBSD) and pessimism (seLinux). Either you trust that _all_ security holes in OpenBSD have been fixed, or you use seLinux to contain the damage of exploits which you believe are inevitable. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-advocacy Fri Jun 22 0:14:18 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [206.29.169.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7F8937B443 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 00:14:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from tedm.placo.com (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [206.29.168.154]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f5M7Dpl79237; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 00:13:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: "Albert D. Cahalan" , Cc: Subject: RE: Ask a question.. Thanks.. Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 00:13:50 -0700 Message-ID: <005701c0faea$e3433e20$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <200106220602.f5M62MG421878@saturn.cs.uml.edu> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG >[mailto:owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Albert D. >Cahalan > [some deleted] >The seLinux box is full of holes, and everybody knows it. >They have wu-FTPd even. So the attacker gets root, but [more deleted] > >Think about it this way: do you build a huge oil tanker ship >with one strong hull (OpenBSD style) or do you build it with >a double hull and many separate compartments inside (seLinux >style) to make sure a single hole won't dump out all the oil? > I wouldn't build a ship with a double hull and many separate compartments inside that was full of holes that everyone knew about. While it seems that compartmentalizing is more secure, the security of ANY box is only as good as the administrator in charge of it. There's an old saying KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) and I would be real concerned about a box that had "security" customizations to the level you describe. It seems more like an auditing nightmare. While the big-strong-hull that's hard to puncture might let all the oil out, there's only one hull you have to inspect. The double-hulled one with the compartments is just multiplying the surfaces requiring inspection by ten times or greater, plus all that metal on the inside carries a great deal of weight and has attachment points on - you guessed it - the outer hull. Give it enough time and metal fatigue is going to be ripping holes in some of the weirdest and most unexpected spots. Plus, with the big hull, once there's a hole in it you can get to it immediately and patch it with little interference. With the honeycomb ship your going to be spending hours and hours getting through compartment after compartment to reach the area of impact. I hope the level of silliness in this analogy has you smiling by now, hopefully you can see what I mean. There's strengths to both approaches. Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-advocacy Fri Jun 22 0:56: 1 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [206.29.169.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 428BB37B403; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 00:55:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from tedm.placo.com (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [206.29.168.154]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f5M7trl79297; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 00:55:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: , "Andy" Cc: "FreeBSD Advocacy" Subject: RE: IEEE Journalist looking for facts about Microsoft use of BSD code Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 00:55:52 -0700 Message-ID: <005801c0faf0$c291bd40$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG The problem with this license fragment (they didn't post the whole license and the link to it doesen't work) is the sentence: "Publicly Available Software" means each of (i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models" The problem that I see is that there's no statement that "software" in this context means "source and object code" or just "object" or just "source. Legally, I believe that case law has defined "software" as either or both Source and Object files. Also, there's no legal definition or defined (in this document) definition of "free software" I suspect that this could be interpreted to mean that if I compiled a program that included components of the Microsoft Mobile Internet Toolkit Beta 2 that if I created a Windows application and just started handing the binary out for free, that I would be in violation of the license. Also, the fragment doesen't cover legal redistribution. (I expect that it's covered elsewhere in the License) But, I'll assume that the way it's written that this license has to follow all derived software that contains components from the Toolkit. Because, if it didn't, then I could create a piece of software with this, then create a second piece of software incorporating my first created piece of software, then put the second piece under GPL and get around the "Viral" restrictions. Instead, I think the license blocks this by mandating that it follows all derived works containing parts of the Toolkit. But, if it does, then the License itself is viral. In short, this license is so sloppily written that any developer would just ignore the tool because it's just too difficult to figure out what they are after with the new License. I mean, this kind of puts the developer into position where they would need to get statements from all their tool manufacturers that _those_ people didn't use any Open Source in their development. Hardly a way to increase sales of the Internet Toolkit I'd say. Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG >[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Andy >Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 3:05 AM >To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG >Subject: RE: IEEE Journalist looking for facts about Microsoft use of >BSD code > > >more fuel for the fire..... > >http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-06-20-018-20-NW-MS-SW > > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-advocacy Fri Jun 22 7:44:53 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from wilma.widomaker.com (wilma.widomaker.com [204.17.220.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D6D537B403 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 07:44:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from shannon@daydream.shannon.net) Received: from [206.246.249.243] (helo=escape.shannon.net) by wilma.widomaker.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #2) id 15DSAp-0000Jy-00 for FreeBSD-advocacy@freebsd.org; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:44:39 -0400 Received: from daydream (daydream.shannon.net [192.168.1.10]) by escape.shannon.net (8.11.0/8.8.8) with ESMTP id f5MEGWc11233 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:16:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shannon by daydream with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15DRjb-0002SP-00 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:16:31 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:16:31 -0400 From: Shannon Hendrix To: FreeBSD-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Ask a question.. Thanks.. Message-ID: <20010622101630.C32692@widomaker.com> Mail-Followup-To: FreeBSD-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG References: <005701c0faea$e3433e20$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <005701c0faea$e3433e20$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 12:13:50AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > I wouldn't build a ship with a double hull and many separate compartments > inside that was full of holes that everyone knew about. It's more like a ship whose hull has or will develop holes, but has protection against the damange that causes. Nothing stops you from replacing the holes in LinuxSE. The NSA isn't trying to fix things like ftp, etc. I'm sure they would recommend you patch things like that up. I think most of their modifications are at the kernel level, not userland. > While it seems that compartmentalizing is more secure, the security > of ANY box is only as good as the administrator in charge of it. > There's an old saying KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) and I would be > real concerned about a box that had "security" customizations to > the level you describe. It seems more like an auditing nightmare. It's nothing new, and it's not an auditing nightmare, at least not any more than any system of it's kind is. It's a lot like Multics was. You have a system where you are protected even from root. Files cannot be given to people whose security level is lower than the file, even by a user with high security privs. root cannot read your private email or files, only do their admin work. Mandatory access is useful in a wide range of systems. Anyway, their goal is a system that supports security and access control like some other systems have (Multics), not to patch up every utility program out there. Think about ISPs running systems like this, where your email is really yours, and even their admins cannot read it. Their role could be defined as delete only since obviously they need to be able to get rid of accounts. But they need never be able to actually read your files. Just an example. I think features like this are useful for general use UNIX systems myself. It's definitely not for every server out there, but there have been a lot of times when I could have used things like this. > While the big-strong-hull that's hard to puncture might let all the oil out, > there's only one hull you have to inspect. The double-hulled one with the [snip] All of which proves the tanker analogy was a bad one. -- "We have nothing to prove" -- Alan Dawkins ______________________________________________________________________ Charles Shannon Hendrix s h a n n o n @ w i d o m a k e r . c o m To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-advocacy Fri Jun 22 8:14:36 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 435DA37B403 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:14:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from mindspring.com (dialup-209.244.104.237.Dial1.SanJose1.Level3.net [209.244.104.237]) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA24144; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3B3360DF.5451C5FA@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:14:39 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Reply-To: tlambert2@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Albert D. Cahalan" Cc: beachboywu@yahoo.com, FreeBSD-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Ask a question.. Thanks.. References: <200106220602.f5M62MG421878@saturn.cs.uml.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "Albert D. Cahalan" wrote: > Think about it this way: do you build a huge oil tanker ship > with one strong hull (OpenBSD style) or do you build it with > a double hull and many separate compartments inside (seLinux > style) to make sure a single hole won't dump out all the oil? Molly Brown? Ernst Lindemann? seLinux? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-advocacy Fri Jun 22 8:17:43 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30B5E37B407 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:17:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from mindspring.com (dialup-209.244.104.237.Dial1.SanJose1.Level3.net [209.244.104.237]) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10230; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:17:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3B3361B1.1CC0E416@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:18:09 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Reply-To: tlambert2@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: "Albert D. Cahalan" , beachboywu@yahoo.com, FreeBSD-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Ask a question.. Thanks.. References: <005701c0faea$e3433e20$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > I wouldn't build a ship with a double hull and many > separate compartments inside that was full of holes > that everyone knew about. Enough strained ship analogies! A tanker carrying red paint collided with a tanker carrying blue paint. All the sailors were marooned. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message