Linux-Advocacy Digest #847, Volume #25 Tue, 28 Mar 00 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Chad Myers")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bobo shows his hypocrisy yet again) (When in LA)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Rumors ... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bobo shows his hypocrisy yet again) (When in LA)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bobo shows his hypocrisy yet again) (Marty)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bobo shows his hypocrisy yet again) (When in LA)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bobo shows his hypocrisy yet again) (When in LA)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bobo shows his hypocrisy yet again) (Marty)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:02:50 GMT
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In short, Unix can do what NT can, but NT cannot do what Unix can.
>
> Sure it can, you just have to trick NT into letting you login as
> SYSTEM. That VMS, er, I mean WNT reserves this account for it's own
> personal use is rather revealing. It says "I know more about this
> computer than the system administrator."
Exactly what can SYSTEM do that Administrator cannot? Please inform us.
> > Such accounts exist on most Unix systems, as well. The lp account is a
> > good example.
>
> And www, wheel, mail, lists, bind, nntp, etc.
>
> The majority of NT services run as the SYSTEM user. (so much for
> ACLs)
a.) If for nothing else than the security that SYSTEM provides (i.e. cannot
access network resources and therefore, if compromised, can only affect
the local system and not those of the rest of the network
and
b.) What do ACLs have to do with the WWW service running as SYSTEM?
Besides, there's nothing preventing anyone from making WWW run as another
user.
Do you even know what ACLs are, Mr. Permission bits Read/Write/Execute?
> > And you are correct. Now, I can do "Administrator" on a Unix system . .
> > . how do you do "root" on an NT system (I'd really like to know, 'cause
> > as far as I can tell, the only way to recover from certain kinds of
> > mistakes on NT is to either reinstall, or in some cases, it looks like
> > you can recover by rebooting . . . )
The only problem that would cause that would be to lose the Administrator
account
password.
What happens if you lose the root password?
> Well, you have to do that anyway ;) -- there's no "single user mode"
> under NT. Well, I suppose you *could* boot up with a linux kernel
> which has NTFS compiled into the kernel and fix the machine from
> there...
-Chad
------------------------------
From: When in LA
Reply-To: When in LA
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bobo shows his hypocrisy yet again)
Date: 28 Mar 2000 04:05:49 GMT
On Sun, 28 Mar 3900 02:07:55, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
|
|> Usenet does not record what was sent to UofH, thus the usenet record
|> is of an "alleged" note, not the actual note.
|
|You've just disqualified all of your own evidence. How moronic!
|
Indeed it would moronic for someone to assume that they cannot
overcome the "alleged" replicative nature of my reposts of
Sutherland's usenet statements by going to DejaNews and seeing what
was automatically captured there for themselves. But of course one
can expects morons such as yourself to come up with moronic
conclusions.
BobO
Marty Amodeo says: "If Glatt, Sutherland, yourself, or myself tried
to get someone fired for using a particular word it is a despicable
act."
David Sutherland made the following quotes in posts residing on
Dejanews:
If I posted anything remotely like Tholen's "queer" [Editor: Note
particular word in quotes] comments with my employers name
anywhere within that message, I would be escorted to the door,
and rightly so.[Editor: Note euphemism for firing]
If Tholen doesn't apologise in full, publicly and at great length, I
*will* advise his university, as this kind of bullshit *should* and
*will* be challenged.[Editor: Note threat]
I've asked Kenneth P. Mortimer, President, University of
Hawaii ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) for his opinion on how
certain members of the faculty are spending their time.[Editor: Note
admission to personal notification of employer]
Tholen used "queer" [Editor: Note particular word in quotes] as an
insult and a means to attack someone. This is discriminatory. He did
so from his employers account. His employer has a policy against
discrimination. Tholen acted against the policies of his employer.
Tholens employer is now aware of this. [Editor: Note reason for
contacting employer]
Pretty despicable, I have to agree Marty.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:01:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roger <roger@.> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:46:36 GMT, someone claiming to be me" wrote:
>
> I certainly don't call that proof that MS pressures hardware
> manufacturers not to support any other OS,
> which is the claim in this thread.
In the Distributor License Agreement used for Windows 98, OEMs
are forbidden to modify or alter the boot sequence from the
initial power-up to the display of the initial desktop.
This includes the installation of Boot Magic, the creation a Linux
partition, or even the alteration of the primary boot partition.
Once the installs the Windows 98 operating system, nothing on the
hard drive can be modified.
There have been two exceptions that I know of:
HP demanded the ability to boot Windows 95 or Windows NT since
Windows 98 didn't work on much of it's initial hardware. Microsoft
wrote a modified version of the NT boot manager but would not allow
HP to install a 3rd party boot manager capable of booting Linux.
Compaq reserves a few of the inner Cylinders for the equivalent
of the OEM disk. This is installed as a separate partition which
is "invisable". Compaq uses this to initialize some of it's
hardware before booting Windows.
This boot modification restriction also prevented IBM from installing
OS/2 or Linux into any of it's machines as dual-boot systems. There
are IBM and Dell machines that can boot Linux, but these machines have
no Microsoft Operating System software.
At this time, I know of no OEM who has announced or offered
a Dual-Boot machine that can run both Windows 98 and Linux -
as a factory installed option. I believe VA Linux does have
a machine that can dual-boot Linux and Windows NT.
Certainly, if you can get a court order and have some of the OEMs
disclose the terms of these contracts, you could confirm or
dispute this information.
Remember Roger, nearly all of the assertions I made in 1998/1999
were eventually disclosed in the DOJ case.
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:19:24 -0600
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I don't think this goal has ANYTHING to do with Windows itself. This
> > goal would be much better served by making the drivers, not the OS
> > open source.
>
> Drivers *are* the OS.
Wow. You mean nVidia, Adaptec, Creative, iomega, and all those others are
actually writing the OS and not Microsoft?
I'm sure they'll be happy to hear about that.
> Without them, a kernel cannot do anything useful.
That doesn't make them the OS itself. Drivers are non-useful without
anything to call into them.
------------------------------
From: When in LA
Reply-To: When in LA
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bobo shows his hypocrisy yet again)
Date: 28 Mar 2000 04:24:16 GMT
On Sun, 28 Mar 3900 02:07:55, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
|> I suppose you would argue in court, in defense of the guy who ran
|> somebody down with his auto, that he didn't intend to kill him because
|> he had not given the guy a physiological examination and therefore had
|> not determined if the guy was vulnerable to being damaged by the car.
|> Your argument is laughable Marty.
|
|Still using the same tired and inappropriate analogy after my refuting it
|numerous times? Sutherland is incapable of committing the act of costing
|Tholen his employment. Tholen jumped out in the middle of the street and
|started giving Sutherland the finger. Sutherland pointed out to a police
|officer that he was J-walking. If the police officer decides he should mow
|him down, how is that Sutherland's fault?
Well at least that is a reasoned argument, however, I when I am done
with it you will see it is not an appropriate analogy:
Relations between employers and employees is not typically thought of
in the same way that the relationship between the public and an
officer of the law is. An officer of the law is supposed to have
justice in mind first and foremost. In fact I would not have objected
if Sutherland thought Tholen had done something illegal and had called
a cop instead of his employer. Instead Sutherland was hoping that he
would get some extra-justice by going after Tholen's employer, knowing
full well there was no legal recourse against Tholen.
So what you have is an injustice situation similar to what one might
expect in a southern state in the 1950's where a white man proclaims
to a white officer that a black man had made a pass at his daughter
and calls for the black man's lynching. Here also the white man may
expect what he is asking for justice as he sees it and he just might
have gotten it, but real justice would not see it as being just.
IMO, the appropriate recourse on the internet is to the police, not to
a person's employer. Just because something is not a crime, good or
bad, is not an excuse to try and get someone fired simply because you
have no other recourse. This is petty, and it is particularly petty
when you consider how petty the whole affair was up until the time
Sutherland decided to raise the stakes.
BobO
Marty Amodeo says: "If Glatt, Sutherland, yourself, or myself tried
to get someone fired for using a particular word it is a despicable
act."
David Sutherland made the following quotes in posts residing on
Dejanews:
If I posted anything remotely like Tholen's "queer" [Editor: Note
particular word in quotes] comments with my employers name
anywhere within that message, I would be escorted to the door,
and rightly so.[Editor: Note euphemism for firing]
If Tholen doesn't apologise in full, publicly and at great length, I
*will* advise his university, as this kind of bullshit *should* and
*will* be challenged.[Editor: Note threat]
I've asked Kenneth P. Mortimer, President, University of
Hawaii ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) for his opinion on how
certain members of the faculty are spending their time.[Editor: Note
admission to personal notification of employer]
Tholen used "queer" [Editor: Note particular word in quotes] as an
insult and a means to attack someone. This is discriminatory. He did
so from his employers account. His employer has a policy against
discrimination. Tholen acted against the policies of his employer.
Tholens employer is now aware of this. [Editor: Note reason for
contacting employer]
Pretty despicable, I have to agree Marty.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bobo shows his hypocrisy yet again)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:23:31 GMT
Interesting how you've determined that I'm not being reasonable:
BO> Obviously you are not going to be reasonable.
Yet, you responded to me anyway in spite of your rhetoric:
BO> I will not reply to you until such time as you direct yourself to at
BO> least a statement of position on the above issues. Until such time,
BO> I will hold my opinion, and you may hold your own, but I am not going
BO> to continue to engage you in irrelevant prattle on the subjects.
Predictably, just more evidence of Bobo's hot air.
Bobo wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 3900 02:07:55, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> |>Note how Mr Interference for the Usenet Spy can easly determine
> |>what the Usenet Spy meant by "getting flogged" but he has trouble
> |>inferring what he intended by contacting Tholen's employer and
> |>complaining about Tholen's use of the word "queer."
>
> |> Have trouble with inferences that require more than one word?
> |
> |Not at all, Bobo. One does not infer to decide guilt. One deduces and proves
> |guilt. One can only infer from a metaphor. You obviously still have no
> |concept what a metaphor is nor how one works, so I'm not surprised that this
> |fact is lost on you.
>
> Hmmm, you must use the same dictionary as Fatglatt.
Now you've really lost the argument. Disregarding all salient points and
resorting to the dictionary to prove a "point". I see your transparent
tactics haven't changed one bit and are not about to. Does your dictionary
still justify your use of the words "moron" and "idiot" to describe retarded
persons? We've all seen the value of your "definitions" in the past.
> Merriam Webster, 10th Edition
> Deduce: 1, Determine by deduction; specif: to infer from a general
> principle.
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=deduce
That's #2, taking a back-seat to:
"1. To reach (a conclusion) by reasoning."
This, of course, has nothing to do the topic of your unsubstantiated claim nor
that of your hypocrisy (which prompted my entrance into this thread) which you
are avoiding (as usual).
> Marty Amodeo says: "If Glatt, Sutherland, yourself, or myself tried
> to get someone fired for using a particular word it is a despicable
> act."
>
> David Sutherland made the following quotes in posts residing on
> Dejanews:
>
> If I posted anything remotely like Tholen's "queer" [Editor: Note
> particular word in quotes] comments with my employers name
> anywhere within that message, I would be escorted to the door,
> and rightly so.[Editor: Note euphemism for firing]
>
> If Tholen doesn't apologise in full, publicly and at great length, I
> *will* advise his university, as this kind of bullshit *should* and
> *will* be challenged.[Editor: Note threat]
>
> I've asked Kenneth P. Mortimer, President, University of
> Hawaii ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) for his opinion on how
> certain members of the faculty are spending their time.[Editor: Note
> admission to personal notification of employer]
>
> Tholen used "queer" [Editor: Note particular word in quotes] as an
> insult and a means to attack someone. This is discriminatory. He did
> so from his employers account. His employer has a policy against
> discrimination. Tholen acted against the policies of his employer.
> Tholens employer is now aware of this. [Editor: Note reason for
> contacting employer]
>
> Pretty despicable, I have to agree Marty.
Still demonstrating your inability to prove your claims? How embarrasing! No
matter how many times you repeat it, it does not magically produce evidence
that Sutherland tried to get Tholen fired for using a word, especially in
light of Sutherland's reproduction of the letter he actually sent to the U of
H. I ask again (noting the lack of previous response), where is the part that
proves that Sutherland tried to get him fired for using a word? Can't find
that part, can you? Too bad.
I see your signature is unchanged. So much for:
BO> See I am not such an unreasonable guy Marty. I will work with you
BO> on this.
More hot air. How convenient that you lied about the existence of my response
to this statement.
--
The wit of Bob Osborn in action:
"Perhaps it something you should try to your kids don't end up as stupid as
you."
"There is an old saying fartface."
"Not only are you a filthy low-life lying bastard pig, you are too stupid to
know it."
------------------------------
From: When in LA
Reply-To: When in LA
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bobo shows his hypocrisy yet again)
Date: 28 Mar 2000 04:28:08 GMT
On Sun, 28 Mar 3900 02:07:55, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
|> Point taken however, since many employer's do not value the rights of
|> their workers and only look to their image and/or profits/funding
|> sources for ultimate employment decisions, they often operate like
|> automobiles in an unthinking way towards the rights of their
|> employees.
|
|Perhaps that's the way your employers have been, but in my experience,
|employers have realized the value of their workers and that profit could not
|exist without the presence of talented professionals. Immaterial in any case,
|as the rigidity and alleged insensitivity of Tholen's employer is hardly
|Sutherland's fault. If the police officer in my previous example just had his
|wife leave him and found out he had terminal cancer, is it Sutherland's fault
|if he flips his wig?
If indeed Sutherland believed that it would require Tholen's employer
to "flip his wig" before he fired Tholen, I might buy that. However
the record clearly shows what Sutherland expected from a typical
employer. Namely that he "would be escorted to the door."
BobO
Marty Amodeo says: "If Glatt, Sutherland, yourself, or myself tried
to get someone fired for using a particular word it is a despicable
act."
David Sutherland made the following quotes in posts residing on
Dejanews:
If I posted anything remotely like Tholen's "queer" [Editor: Note
particular word in quotes] comments with my employers name
anywhere within that message, I would be escorted to the door,
and rightly so.[Editor: Note euphemism for firing]
If Tholen doesn't apologise in full, publicly and at great length, I
*will* advise his university, as this kind of bullshit *should* and
*will* be challenged.[Editor: Note threat]
I've asked Kenneth P. Mortimer, President, University of
Hawaii ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) for his opinion on how
certain members of the faculty are spending their time.[Editor: Note
admission to personal notification of employer]
Tholen used "queer" [Editor: Note particular word in quotes] as an
insult and a means to attack someone. This is discriminatory. He did
so from his employers account. His employer has a policy against
discrimination. Tholen acted against the policies of his employer.
Tholens employer is now aware of this. [Editor: Note reason for
contacting employer]
Pretty despicable, I have to agree Marty.
------------------------------
From: When in LA
Reply-To: When in LA
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bobo shows his hypocrisy yet again)
Date: 28 Mar 2000 04:30:39 GMT
On Sun, 28 Mar 3900 02:07:55, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
|> |> and you instead choose to attack me with a variety of juvenile insults,
|> |
|> |Such as "fartface", for example, hypocrite? Now I challenge you to locate a
|> |juvenile insult that *I* issued towards you.
|>
|> OK
|>
|> |Still blowing hot air?
|
|How is this a "juvenile insult"? I've stated my reasons why your words were
|hollow and empty, amounting to blowing hot air (your context removal
|notwithstanding).
|
|> |Typical illogic.
|
|Tholen would be quite interested to know how you find this to be a juvenile
|insult. Nonetheless, it too was accompanied by an explanation of what I found
|illogical in your statement (your context removal notwithstanding).
|
|> |Still having reading comprehension problems?
|
|Tholen would be quite interested to know how you find this to be a juvenile
|insult. Nonetheless, it too was accompanied by an explanation of how I
|determined you were having difficulty comprehending what was written (your
|context removal notwithstanding).
|
|> |How transparent can you get?
|
|How is this a "juvenile insult"? I've predicted your actions and you followed
|them to a "T", thus demonstrating the transparency of your tactics (your
|context removal notwithstanding).
|
|> |Typical illogic.
|
|Tholen would be quite interested to know how you find this to be a juvenile
|insult. Nonetheless, it too was accompanied by an explanation of what I found
|illogical in your statement (your context removal notwithstanding).
|
|> |Just another Bobo lie.
|
|How is this a "juvenile insult"? I've pointed out how your statements have
|been untruthful (your context removal notwithstanding) and you have failed to
|refute my points on this matter.
|
|> |Typical pontification.
|
|Tholen would be quite interested to know how you find this to be a juvenile
|insult. Nonetheless, it followed a statement which you've failed to back up
|(your context removal notwithstanding).
|
|> |No need, hypocrite:
|
|How is this a "juvenile insult"? I've pointed out how your statements have
|been hypocritical (your context removal notwithstanding) and you have failed
|to refute my points on this matter.
|
|> |Still having reading comprehension problems?
|
|Tholen would be quite interested to know how you find this to be a juvenile
|insult. Nonetheless, it too was accompanied by an explanation of how I
|determined you were having difficulty comprehending what was written (your
|context removal notwithstanding).
|
|> | I see you're still enjoying your verbal masturbation.
|
|How is this a "juvenile insult"? I've fully described how your style of
|posting has fit perfectly with this metaphor (your context removal
|notwithstanding) and you have failed to refute my points on this matter.
|
|> | Still continuing your verbal masturbation, eh Bobo?
|
|How is this a "juvenile insult"? I've fully described how your style of
|posting has fit perfectly with this metaphor (your context removal
|notwithstanding) and you have failed to refute my points on this matter.
|
|> |Still having reading comprehension problems?
|
|Tholen would be quite interested to know how you find this to be a juvenile
|insult. Nonetheless, it too was accompanied by an explanation of how I
|determined you were having difficulty comprehending what was written (your
|context removal notwithstanding).
A I don't read Tholen's posts, and how can any of the above not be
juvenile insults?
BobO
Marty Amodeo says: "If Glatt, Sutherland, yourself, or myself tried
to get someone fired for using a particular word it is a despicable
act."
David Sutherland made the following quotes in posts residing on
Dejanews:
If I posted anything remotely like Tholen's "queer" [Editor: Note
particular word in quotes] comments with my employers name
anywhere within that message, I would be escorted to the door,
and rightly so.[Editor: Note euphemism for firing]
If Tholen doesn't apologise in full, publicly and at great length, I
*will* advise his university, as this kind of bullshit *should* and
*will* be challenged.[Editor: Note threat]
I've asked Kenneth P. Mortimer, President, University of
Hawaii ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) for his opinion on how
certain members of the faculty are spending their time.[Editor: Note
admission to personal notification of employer]
Tholen used "queer" [Editor: Note particular word in quotes] as an
insult and a means to attack someone. This is discriminatory. He did
so from his employers account. His employer has a policy against
discrimination. Tholen acted against the policies of his employer.
Tholens employer is now aware of this. [Editor: Note reason for
contacting employer]
Pretty despicable, I have to agree Marty.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bobo shows his hypocrisy yet again)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:33:57 GMT
Can't make up your mind before you post, Bobo? Again you employ your usual
tactic to fragment a thread to further obscure its purpose. How much more
transparent can you get?
Interesting how you've determined that I'm not being reasonable:
BO> Obviously you are not going to be reasonable.
Yet, you responded to me anyway in spite of your rhetoric:
BO> I will not reply to you until such time as you direct yourself to at
BO> least a statement of position on the above issues. Until such time,
BO> I will hold my opinion, and you may hold your own, but I am not going
BO> to continue to engage you in irrelevant prattle on the subjects.
Predictably, just more Bobo hot air.
Bobo wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 3900 02:07:55, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
"[more flak deleted]"
> Marty Amodeo says: "If Glatt, Sutherland, yourself, or myself tried
> to get someone fired for using a particular word it is a despicable
> act."
>
> David Sutherland made the following quotes in posts residing on
> Dejanews:
>
> If I posted anything remotely like Tholen's "queer" [Editor: Note
> particular word in quotes] comments with my employers name
> anywhere within that message, I would be escorted to the door,
> and rightly so.[Editor: Note euphemism for firing]
>
> If Tholen doesn't apologise in full, publicly and at great length, I
> *will* advise his university, as this kind of bullshit *should* and
> *will* be challenged.[Editor: Note threat]
>
> I've asked Kenneth P. Mortimer, President, University of
> Hawaii ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) for his opinion on how
> certain members of the faculty are spending their time.[Editor: Note
> admission to personal notification of employer]
>
> Tholen used "queer" [Editor: Note particular word in quotes] as an
> insult and a means to attack someone. This is discriminatory. He did
> so from his employers account. His employer has a policy against
> discrimination. Tholen acted against the policies of his employer.
> Tholens employer is now aware of this. [Editor: Note reason for
> contacting employer]
>
> Pretty despicable, I have to agree Marty.
Still demonstrating your inability to prove your claims? How embarrasing! No
matter how many times you repeat it, it does not magically produce evidence
that Sutherland tried to get Tholen fired for using a word, especially in
light of Sutherland's reproduction of the letter he actually sent to the U of
H. I ask again (noting the lack of previous response), where is the part that
proves that Sutherland tried to get him fired for using a word? Can't find
that part, can you? Too bad.
I see your signature is unchanged. So much for:
BO> See I am not such an unreasonable guy Marty. I will work with you
BO> on this.
More hot air. How convenient that you lied about my response to this
statement.
--
The wit of Bob Osborn in action:
"Perhaps it something you should try to your kids don't end up as stupid as
you."
"There is an old saying fartface."
"Not only are you a filthy low-life lying bastard pig, you are too stupid to
know it."
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 28 Mar 2000 04:39:59 GMT
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >
: > : Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
: > : >
: > : > No. What I mean is, I want to force the administrator to go out of his way
: > : > to delete files he doesn't own, not just issue a callous command line.
: >
: > : No problem. Create a new account, using the "admin" login name, create
: > : the appropriate group, add admin to all of the appropriate groups, then
: > : set permissions correctly, and voila! You have an administrator account
: > : that allows you to restrict the administrators access.
: >
: > Yet, the root account still exists on the system. You seem to have
: > overlooked that little fact. The very existence of root is a problem.
: Oh, just like the SYSTEM account still exists under NT.
Yes, but you cannot log in as System. So your point is moot.
: I suppose you'll have to scrap NT now; it's obviously useless since
: it allows you to control your machine (why would you want that?!?).
: Give it a rest. This whole argument is lame. If you're a careless
: administrator, you're going to have problems with *any* NOS.
Craig, you demonstrate your lack of insight yet again.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
