Linux-Advocacy Digest #480, Volume #25 Thu, 2 Mar 00 18:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Free Internet denied to Linux users (Arthur)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ("Chad Myers")
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto ("Chad Myers")
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto ("Chad Myers")
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (George Marengo)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Christopher Smith")
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (Josiah Fizer)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto ("Christopher Smith")
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Josiah Fizer)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Chad Myers")
Re: Free Internet denied to Linux users (John Culleton)
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Free Internet denied to Linux users
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:05:09 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mig Mig wrote:
> John Culleton wrote:
> > In article <89k1ek$erv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mig Mig
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >This is nonsens.....
> > >As long as you have the necessary data you can connect to
> > anything with
> > >Linux/FreeBSD/Whatever.
> > >Find the necessary info on the CD if techsupport does not want
> > to help you
> > >- its certainly there
> > >Greetings
> > Its not that simple. First you have to get online with the vendor
> > from their software. Then you have to select a local phone number
> > for access. Then you have to establish a user name and password.
> > None of this info is on the cdrom as such. What you have is a few
> > gifs and icons, MS Internet Explorer, and a setup.exe one can't
> > execute without Win 9x.
> Ahh... that puts it in another light...
> OK l have an idea :-) I have seen this kind before.
> My guess is that its probably a IE based onlineregistration where the CD
> program makes a call to a certain phonenumber wiht a common username and
> password that all must use in order to make a onlineregistration. After the
> call IE takes over (you can use netscape or something else... maybe kfm
> from KDE where you can fool the server that youre using IE)
> So you just need 1) the phonenumber 2) The common username 3) The
> common password.
[snip]
Haven't ever used any of these, but looking at NetZero, it
works like this (TANSTAAFL, of course):
NetZero runs an app separate from your browser that places a
"ZeroPort" (their name for it) on the screen. The ZeroPort
displays ads targetted to you based on lots of information
you give them when you sign up. I suspect you need Windows
to allow the ZeroPort thingy to work.
They also claim that, while you can move the ZeroPort to
anywhere on the screen, you can't close it's window. That
brings up the interesting question: Can you run say a
1024x768 virtual desktop on an actual 800X600 screen and
stash the ZeroPort on the portion of the screen that's
out of sight? Or can they check for this and disallow it?
Does Windows know if a window on a virtual desktop is
visible or can you hack Windows to determine this?
Also, has anyone tried this? I'd think the advertising
would suck up a lot of the dialup bandwidth and make
these kinds of services really slow.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 16:11:54 -0600
There's a minor difference in how MIT recommends you implement
it and how MS implemented it. It's still standard, however,
as Non-Windows clients can authenticate to a Windows KDC,
and Windows clients can authenticate to a Non-Windows KDC.
Windows KDCs and Non-Windows KDCs can trust each other as well.
Sounds pretty standard compliant to me. All the bases are
covered. Again, remind me how it doesn't work again?
-Chad
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > How exactly have they subverted Kerberos? Please document.
>
> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/03/02/0958226&cid=127, by Jeremy
> Allison of Samba fame. Be sure to read his reply to someone's "Can you link
> to any hard data?"
>
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 16:16:22 -0600
I'm sorry you're so misinformed and that you've been out of the
loop so long.
Compaq and several other vendors have 8-proc systems and have
had them for several months.
The Compaq Proliant 8500 is an 8-way system and was used
in the TPC-C benchmarks where Windows2000 and SQL Server 2000
blew away Sun and IBM's top of the line.
The Proliant 8500 and Windows2000 are available today,
SQL Server is expected 3rd quarter of 2000.
UNISYS has a 16-proc system and expects to have a 32-proc system
available to coincide with Win2K Datacenter's release.
NEC has a 16-way Itanium server in development that is
expected to coincide with the release of Itanium.
Windows2000 Datacenter server Win64 was demonstrated
on this machine in some tests of Win2000 DC Server and
Win64's linear scalability to n-Processors.
-Chad
"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Show me an x86 system with more than 4 processors please. Win2k doesn't
> support Alpha or PPC therefore it can't run on more than 4 processors
> right now.
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > [deletia]
> >
> > > >Ouch! Looks like you missed the windows 2000 launch.
> > > >You should head to MS and view the video of the event.
> > > >You'll see a live demo where they fire up a 16 processor
> > > >unisys box and run an application on it with 8 processors.
> > > >Then
> > >
> > > That's interesting.
> > >
> > > The version of NT5 that was realeased then hasn't been
> > > advertising that capability. Neither has the version
> > > that will eventually be called 'Datacenter'.
> >
> > Yes, both of them have.
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/features/
> > default.asp
> >
> > (URL wrapped for readability, sorry)
> >
> > Windows 2000 server supports 4GB memory and 4 processors
> >
> > Windows 2000 Adv. Server supports 8GB and 8 processors
> >
> > Windows 2000 DC Server supporst 16GB (I believe?) and
> > 32 processors
> >
> > > Not to mention those TPC/C benchmarks that are still being
> > > done on 4-cpu boxes.
> >
> > What? Man, do you even try to review your statements for
> > truth before you state them?
> >
> > That's completely wrong. The Compaq Proliant 8500 has
> > 8 processors.
> >
> > 12 Compaq Proliant 8500s, 96 processors total.
> >
> > What's 96/12? Yes, that's right. 8.
> >
> > > A dog and pony show, or some docttored video doesn't
> > > really prove anything.
> >
> > Heh... man, you guys really are something. I bet you
> > watch X files because "it's so real life".
> >
> > -Chad
>
> --
> You say it's cool to be yourself,
> but you want me to be like you
> and that is not being myself
> http://digitalheresy.tripod.com
> --
> Mac and Windows users, make some free cash:
> http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=HRK719
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 16:18:13 -0600
"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I can't make Win2k crash,
I know, many other people have a hard time doing it too!
> all I have to do is install a NT4 driver for
> my cd burner!
Ah, amazing! A driver takes down an OS. And remind me
which (non-mainframe) OS won't go down by installing
a buggy driver?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 22:18:18 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 22:06:20 GMT, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Show me an x86 system with more than 4 processors please.
Since you asked nicely...
http://www.compaq.com/products/servers/proliant8500/stdfeatures.html
http://www.dell.com/us/en/biz/products/series_rkopt_servers.htm
>Win2k doesn't support Alpha or PPC
Correct.
>therefore it can't run on more than 4 processors right now.
Incorrect.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:19:25 +1000
"Stanislav Kogan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>
> > > What will be the reply?
> > > "Oh my, that proves NT is perfect, I will abandon BSD/Solaris for NT
> > > immediately!" - Of course not. So, again, what is the point? Why does
it
> > > matter?
> >
> > What you cannot understand, apparently, is that with MS being
> > unable/unwilling to switch Hotmail to NT, why should anyone else
> > with comparable requirements do so? And why does MS-Marketing
> > tell us: "SWIIIICH TOOOO NNNNN-TTTTTTeeeeee!!!"
>
> Sometimes they use plain force on organizations, in order to switch them
> to NT.
> Example: their recent actions with some universities in US.
> I'm sorry I can't post full information about it. (don't remeber the
> URL). I'll post it later.
That's right folks, you read it here first. Recent raids by Microsoft's new
heavily armed shock troops dropped in dawn raids by silent black helicopters
on loan from the UN have resulted in every single person at those
institutions being forced at gunpoint to use Windows. The New World Order
stands on the brink of complete control strongly backed by the gray aliens.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:20:03 +1000
"Stanislav Kogan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> >
> > "Just one amongst others." What others? Hotmail is a property owned by
MS,
> > yes. But, when someone buys property it does not always follow that they
> > will then immediately take and strip it down to it's very core (OS and
> > Application), rewrite it all over again and carry on. If they had wanted
to
> > do that, why not just build their own hotmail from the ground up? name
> > recognition is the answer to that. So, why convert at all? Let's put it
this
> > way: Not everything that MS owns or has shares in runs Windows on every
> > single screen - hotmail is not an exception either. Gates owns 51% of a
> > naval shipyard, I'm sure there are non-windows computers in that
operation
>
> Oh, you bring up an interesting story. The Cruiser story. (or should we
> call it "NT and division by zero"?)
Or perhaps "OSes can't save broken applications" ?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 16:25:39 -0600
Michael Wand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > -Use an external app-- provide a link to the file which the browser
can
> > hand
> > > off to a viewer, or a line of text that says "Point Acme
> > StreamingVideoViewer
> > > at dracolisk400.example.net:4040"
> >
> > No different than using a plug-in.
>
> At least, it provides a better separation of the content od the webpage
> and the add-ons.
and all higher level functionality should be achieved through piping as
well.
It's this sort of attitude that prevents Linux from becoming a mainstream
OS. "It SHOULD be difficult to use, dammit. I don't want morons using my
OS" then you whine because your OS doesn't have the support that the
"moron" OS has.
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:11:13 -0800
5X3 wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yup, cause Linux is so much better at 3D, Graphics, Multimeda and productivity
>apps then say Irix
> > or Solaris. Oh wait.....
>
> You're pretty uppity for someone who cant wrap lines with netscape
> under windowsNT.
>
> p0ok
Yea, sucks I know. But its what I use at work. Cant be bothered to install a news
reader on the Indu or
Ultra 5 at my desk.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 2 Mar 2000 22:29:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 14:10:38 -0500,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:56:16 -0500,
> > Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > > message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:15:22 -0500,
> > > > Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You are entitled to your oppinion. And if NT works better for you
> > than $OTHER_OS, you should by all means use it.
> Always agree to that.
Oh, we actually agree. :-)
> > > > The lesson here is: If you run Solaris and do something remotely
> > > > similar to Hotmail, you don't need NT ...
> > > I do not agree.
> > Care to explain why you do *NEED* NT if you are doing "something
> > remotely similar to Hotmail", running Solaris?
> Well - I guess you don't *need* NT nor do you *need* Solaris - you just
> *need* an OS that can do the job. Both NT and Solaris can. So choice is
> based on other criteria.
So you agree?
(and if NT can will be shown later on by MS themselves. Get out
the popcorn and watch.)
> > It won't be NT, then. Oh, well, OK, they should use the best
> > system they have for the job.
> Um, no. It WILL be NT, W2K = NT5
In the same way that Solaris is SunOs ... *not* by codebase.
You happen to say the same later on.
> No argument. Never said Solaris was terribly inconvenient when already
> debugged and working.
[...]
> I think it's valid to assume MS looked into the possiblity of converting to
> NT - but, for reasons we can ONLY speculate, they decided not to ... yet.
Which, in itself, is interesting when compared to the usual MS
marketing.
> > > License cost is not a concern to MS - wouldn't you think? :)
> > No, but to anyone else it is, thus the number of machines is
> > important.
> But we're talking about MS and Hotmail - not anyone else.
Hotmail per se is uninteresting. It's only interesting as it's
invalidating some of MS'es marketing and as a field study of why
(or why not) to convert a well-running system to something MS says
is the best thing since sliced bread (until the next revision).
> > I wonder if they had a well-administrated Free|Net|Open-BSD in the
> > test. Win2K would really need to work wonders on the same HW to
> > beat a no license cost OS. You happen to have an URL?
> www.tpc.org - more specifically: http://www.tpc.org/new_result/ttperf.idc
Ah, thanks. Interesting.
> And, it would be easy to beat a no license cost OS. You'll note that on top
> performing machines that the cost of the OS is barely a single % of the
> total cost. So, a no-cost OS would reduce the price by 1% - it wouldn't be
> significant.
Yep. But ... *counts*
The software + the 5 years maintenance is $551,349, ($501.727
after the discount, if you pay cash as well). The complete pack
is $3,893,733 (after discount), which means the software is 7.76%
of the price. Granted, the server software is about $51,000 ...
As you noticed, there's no Linux or *BSD listed, probably due to
the high price for testing. (Linux does not need to sell itself
that way, MS has to.) So one can but wonder how Linux would do
given that kind of budget. (Actually, Deja.com is running Linux,
so the answer might be: not too bad ...)
> > That's why I said *enough* money. I wonder how a beowulf-cluster
> > will perform compared to a W2K cluster.
> All someone has to do is fire one up and run the benchmark. Anyone.
... who has the money and interest (in selling these things?).
In other words, I cannou, even if I had a reasonable Beowulf.
> The
> benchmark is SUPER tightly audited and not cheap to run but it's in the
> public view and very well documented. Look at the 500+ page results
> submissions to see what I mean.
Nice, if you are into that kind of application. We'll see.
> > I assume (and may be wrong) that NT will need more machines than
> > the currently used Solaris needs.
> I think you would be wrong. Again, as the TPC benchmarks show, using less
> processors and less machines, the Compaq/MS solution smoked various Sun
> solutions.
Oh, W2K. Should have written NT4.
> > And NT (note NT, not W2K) is
> > not that easily administered from afar as a Unix.
> Umm... well, I might argue that as well. You can use various 3rd party tools
> like remotely anywhere to completely control a NT box by remote.
See, with Unixoids you get that sort of stuff build in. Inclusive
being able to run the GUI on a different computer.
> I don't know how it could be much easier?
Try entering a cron job to run every day, every 5 minutes, except
when it's sunday or the 3rd day of the month. Don't run in
December, either.[0] How many entries? Under Vixie Cron (sorta the
default which the others emulate these days ... and which will be
in almost any Linux distribution[1]) it's
Min hour Day/Mon Mon Wday
*/5 * 1,2,4-31 1-11 1-6 SCRIPTNAME_OR_PROGRAMNAME
... a single line.
[0] Perhaps you want it to check it's status and send you mail
accordingly, so you know when something's gone wrong.
Administration, especially remote, means intelligent
automation. Else it won't scale!
[1] if not, just grab the source code ...
> But I can concede that NT4 is not as
> easily administered remotely as W2K (NT5).
> SIGNIFICANTLY. W2K has exactly 7 scenarios requiring reboot. 151 others have
> been elminated. As far as I know, from my own experience, changing video
> drivers or the entire computer type requires a reboot - I haven't
> encountered any other reboot scenarios.
Well, if I want to change video drivers I might have to
(re)start the GUI under Linux. No need to drop network or
reboot :-)
And what do you mean by computer type? Hardware changes
(processors, e.g.)? In that case, no, Linux won't help much,
unless you run it on a mainframe. There you can do that.
> > It depends on your needs. My needs were not met by NT4, and they
> > probably won't be met by W2K, but I feel happier for those people
> > wo are forced to use MS: Maybe their plights are lighter now.
> You should forget all you know about NT4 and give W2K a fresh new chance. I
> think you'll find it's a whole new ballgame - huge improvements in every
> category. Your needs may not have been met by NT4 - but it's unfair to judge
> W2K so harshly without even having checked it out at all.
Well, for one thing, I have become addicted to CLIs. The mouse is
nice for selecting your Xterm and some games or selecting which
parts of a picture to zoom in on. I use a CLI newsreader, a CLI
mailreader, even a CLI browser. Why? It's faster for me. (I'm
typing this mail on a client on the other side of an ISDN line.
On a completely different, but Unixoid OS. Works OK for me.
Would not work it I had to transmit a GUI.)
Then I really grew to love the power of *good* manuals. And
having usable tools. I cannot really imagine a GUI where I can
do (basically) a
cat FILE | sorter | parser | grouper | grouper2 | recode |
DB-frontent > Backup
Where every one of the programs is rather small, and rather easily
debugged. Most of them written by myself ...
Then I do like to have the source of (most) software I use, if
only to read the programmers' annotation in the code, if I should
run into problems. Yes, that's happened to me before.
The only thing Linux has not enough for me is some games, but then
I don't have much time either. :-/ Then again, older DOS games
have often much more appeal than the new 'all graphic, all
flashy-shiney FX, less gameplay' ones ... and Linux is catching up
on (commercial) games as well.
Did I mention easy and extremely flexible automatisation?
> The novell claim? That's no hole, novell doesn't understand the MS security
> model (or how to read the clear documentation either apparently).
The "W2K's wide open if you install it, up to changing passwords
and inserting root kits over the network". I'll look it up if you
want me to.
> As I said, this is a new NT and I think a new MS support model. This past
> one year has seen radical changes internal changes at MS and I think it'll
> start to show up soon.
Time will tell.
> > The question is, how does the NT+W2K market share (in percent)
> > will change.
> It will continue to grow upwards, I'm confident.
If the quality deserves it, it's OK with me. Unless they try the
'squeeze everything else to death' method. They did that a couple
of times too often. They should not need it.
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:29:27 +1000
"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I can't make Win2k crash,
Don't worry, you're not alone !
> all I have to do is install a NT4 driver for
> my cd burner!
You might find if you install the wrong driver on almost any other OS it
will crash that as well.
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:17:12 -0800
Mike wrote:
> Show me an x86 system with more than 4 processors please. Win2k doesn't
> support Alpha or PPC therefore it can't run on more than 4 processors
> right now.
>
Um there are 6-8 CPU Pentium Pro and Xenon systems. Whats more there have
been for a long time.
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > [deletia]
> >
> > > >Ouch! Looks like you missed the windows 2000 launch.
> > > >You should head to MS and view the video of the event.
> > > >You'll see a live demo where they fire up a 16 processor
> > > >unisys box and run an application on it with 8 processors.
> > > >Then
> > >
> > > That's interesting.
> > >
> > > The version of NT5 that was realeased then hasn't been
> > > advertising that capability. Neither has the version
> > > that will eventually be called 'Datacenter'.
> >
> > Yes, both of them have.
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/features/
> > default.asp
> >
> > (URL wrapped for readability, sorry)
> >
> > Windows 2000 server supports 4GB memory and 4 processors
> >
> > Windows 2000 Adv. Server supports 8GB and 8 processors
> >
> > Windows 2000 DC Server supporst 16GB (I believe?) and
> > 32 processors
> >
> > > Not to mention those TPC/C benchmarks that are still being
> > > done on 4-cpu boxes.
> >
> > What? Man, do you even try to review your statements for
> > truth before you state them?
> >
> > That's completely wrong. The Compaq Proliant 8500 has
> > 8 processors.
> >
> > 12 Compaq Proliant 8500s, 96 processors total.
> >
> > What's 96/12? Yes, that's right. 8.
> >
> > > A dog and pony show, or some docttored video doesn't
> > > really prove anything.
> >
> > Heh... man, you guys really are something. I bet you
> > watch X files because "it's so real life".
> >
> > -Chad
>
> --
> You say it's cool to be yourself,
> but you want me to be like you
> and that is not being myself
> http://digitalheresy.tripod.com
> --
> Mac and Windows users, make some free cash:
> http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=HRK719
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 16:36:34 -0600
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89mpgt$lgm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> That's right folks, you read it here first. Recent raids by Microsoft's new
> heavily armed shock troops dropped in dawn raids by silent black helicopters
> on loan from the UN have resulted in every single person at those
> institutions being forced at gunpoint to use Windows. The New World Order
> stands on the brink of complete control strongly backed by the gray aliens.
Don't forget Jim Alch...er... The Smoking Man.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Free Internet denied to Linux users
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 22:27:32 GMT
In article <89mk5g$peq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Culleton wrote:
> > In article <89k1ek$erv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mig Mig
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> Ahh... that puts it in another light...
> OK l have an idea :-) I have seen this kind before.
>
> My guess is that its probably a IE based onlineregistration where the
CD
> program makes a call to a certain phonenumber wiht a common username
and
> password that all must use in order to make a onlineregistration.
After the
> call IE takes over (you can use netscape or something else... maybe
kfm
> from KDE where you can fool the server that youre using IE)
> So you just need 1) the phonenumber 2) The common username 3) The
> common password.
>
> The best you could do is to post a message in a forum that users if
that
> ISP frequent. A better idea is to have a friend with Windows to do
the
> registratiion for you wth your data.
>
> Are you sure there there is only a setup.exe.? What about in the IE
> directory?
> My company made some access stuff just like that and the necessary
usrname
> and password could be found somewhere on the CD.
>
Well, I fust found a new one from Lycos.com. They use a download instead
of a cdrom. So I will try tro download their stuff and examine it using
od etc looking for the secret codes. They do give you access to their
phonenumbers which is a help.
HOw does kfm spoof the remote system into thinking you have MSIE? That
might be part of the solution.
Any other war stories out there? If the various help desks get inundated
by calls from angry Penguin-heads maybe some single vendor woudl see the
light.
Thanks
John C.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 22:57:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc D. Butler <nospam*[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
: Just thought I'd jump in here real quick... it was my understanding that
: VCR formats ended up as they did since one company had the format for Beta,
: and they wouldn't give it to anyone else... therefore, the open VHS format
: became the popular type so no one had to pay royalty fees. Same thing
: happened with Laserdisc's..... I may be entirely wrong, too. Ahh well.
That, and also VHS tapes had a longer duration than Beta tapes. You
could fit more stuff onto a VHS tape. Thus, the movie was cheaper.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
