Re: CFS and Linux

>  1: please make it install 'out-of-the-box' on Linux.

AT&T's refusal to support CFS and other so-called "secure" software
under Linux is typical and to be expected.  Linux, the most popular
alternative to Microsoft, represents a direct threat to AT&T's bread
and butter and to their ability to control the security software market.
The fact that the CFS install programme deletes other security software
is no accident.  We would be foolish to expect them to admit their
malice - they will excuse it as a "mistake" or will ignore it altogether.

I don't agree with all of the "Gates" character's claims against
AT&T, however I think their motives can be summed up in three words:
Greed, Greed, Greed.  Use their software and you support the giant.
Remember their theft from the Berkeley graduate students each
time you accept "free" software from this greedy monster.

I also do not accept Blaze's cowardly defense of his actions and of
his too-comfortable situation; one cannot help but be reminded of
the Nazi "just following orders" prattle repeated rote as they were
called to answer for their crimes.  It rings no less hollow to this
day.  But I will not condemn him, nor will I call on others to do so,
preferring to leave that matter between him and his Maker.

Weinstein, of course, is beast of another color, but that will have
to wait.

Alice de 'nonymous ...               <an455120@anon.penet.fi>


                                  ...just another one of those...


P.S.  This post is in the public domain.
                  C.  S.  U.  M.  O.  C.  L.  U.  N.  E.

Alice B. Cohen writes:
anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com writes:
> >  1: please make it install 'out-of-the-box' on Linux.
> 
> AT&T's refusal to support CFS and other so-called "secure" software
> under Linux is typical and to be expected.

God, you are an obnoxious prick.

First of all, this is Matt Blaze's pet project, not a product of
AT&T. It is given away for free and you should be happy to get it at
all -- no one is obligated to give you a gift. Have you mailed him a
Linux machine to do his testing on? Why do you assume he even has one?
As it happens, he doesn't, and probably doesn't want to go through the
hassle of paying for a computer and putting Linux on it.

Be happy he's given you anything at all.

Perry

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes:
> Alice B. Cohen writes:
> anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com writes:
> > >  1: please make it install 'out-of-the-box' on Linux.

I have the impression that the vast majority of free Unix stuff, even
systems-related, runs well under Linux. Some program have problems with flavors
of Unix. E.g., I remember how much trouble it was to get pcomm to run under
SunOS. I see nothing at all "obnoxious" about this polite request to fix CFS. I
see tons of polite requests to fix free stuff on Usenet.

> > AT&T's refusal to support CFS and other so-called "secure" software
> > under Linux is typical and to be expected.
>
> God, you are an obnoxious prick.
>
> First of all, this is Matt Blaze's pet project, not a product of
> AT&T. It is given away for free and you should be happy to get it at
> all -- no one is obligated to give you a gift. Have you mailed him a
> Linux machine to do his testing on? Why do you assume he even has one?
> As it happens, he doesn't, and probably doesn't want to go through the
> hassle of paying for a computer and putting Linux on it.

Perry, one doesn't need to mail someone a Linux machine, or pay for a new
computer. One can install it easily in a partition on a non-dedicated PC
running Windows, and boot it and MS DOS alternatively. I got the latest Linux
CD from $12 from Morse Communications. Or, one can download Linux. Most people
have an Intel box somewhere. Linux is free, and comes with source code.

Everyone I know who writes code serously has at least tried Linux. No everyone
uses it for serious work, but everyone at least played with it. Not having even
tried suggests (to me) a regrettable lack of intellectual curiosity.

After using both Linux and SCO Unix Extensively on Intel boxes, I can attest
that Linux is much less buggy and better supported (via Usenet) than SCO.

(*Unix is no longer a trademark of AT&T Bell Labs)

---

Dr. Dimitri Vulis
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Just to pick nits...

> Everyone I know who writes code serously has at least tried
> Linux. No everyone uses it for serious work, but everyone at least
> played with it. Not having even tried suggests (to me) a regrettable
> lack of intellectual curiosity.

I do serious development work under Linux.  For example, I've been
doing development of PGP 3 on an IBM Thinkpad running Linux.  So, I
can honestly say that I use Linux for serious work...

-derek