Linux-Advocacy Digest #884, Volume #25 Thu, 30 Mar 00 18:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex
Ballard ))
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Chad Myers")
Re: 80286 Question : was : I WAS WRONG
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 22:28:48 GMT
In article <jiwE4.804$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8bt8jj$2vv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > What the contributors to NCSA Mosaic were told by NCSA was that
> > Spyglass wanted "Branding Rights". This primarily consisted of
> > the ability to put a logo where the Mosaic ICON was originally,
> > and the ability to preload the bookmarks file.
>
> My understanding is that, like the JPL,
> since NCSA is a government funded
> agency, then everything that's not
> classified that they produce must be
> released to the public free of charge
> (since the taxpayers already paid for
> it).
The original (circa 1993-1994) license to Mosaic was very
similar to the GNU Public License. Enhancements had to
be returned to the original author, the NCSA had the right
to distribute the code, with source code, and users could
not modify the source code without returning the enhancements
to NCSA.
Marc Andreeson, the primary contributor and principle coordinator
for Mosaic eventually went on to create Netscape. The key was
that he used NONE of the original Mosaic code and requested
permission to use enhancements made to Mosaic in Netscape from
the various contributors. At that time, there was a bit of
contriversy over Netscape's use of NCSA technology, but Marc
tried very hard to do right by people. Very few involved with
Mosaic realized how valuable web browsers would become, they
often settled for complimentary copies of Netscape and limited
distribution rights.
> The NCSA can get additional funding
> by selling liscenses to source
> code, which it has done with
> (for example, the NCSA web server it sold to
> Netscape).
The problem was that the NCSA had made one agreement, promising
to keep all of this technology protected under a public license,
and then the NCSA unilaterally altered the terms of the license.
In fact, the NCSA unilaterally altered the terms several times.
People objected to the first Prodigy version which wouldn't let
you type in a URL. They objected to an AOL version that ran TCL
extensions. Each time Spry came back requesting another alteration
to the contract, none of the contributors were notified.
Eventually, most of the contributors switched their support to
Arena, which was a GPL version of Mosaic that was part of the FSF
archive and was used as a reference model for HTML 4. Unfortunately,
Netscape refused to allow SSL and certain fire-wall enhancements to
be included in Arena (I'm sure part of it was because FSF insisted
that they not enforce their SSL patent rights :-).
The new W3C XML reference model - Opera, isn't even available in a
public license version. Eventually, the KDE and GNOME teams created
browsers capable of displaying XML documents containing all W3C
approved features. The KDE explorer follows the Microsoft IE
lead in that the explorer doubles as a web browser.
> > There were specific exclusions - many developers, including Marc
> > Andreeson specifically denied the request to modify the executable
> > binary outside of the NCSA public license (Open Source).
>
> Most of the developers were student interns
> (including andreeson) with no
> rights in the release of the products.
Actually, most of the contributors were independent
contributors who were not doing work for hire. They
were contributing their own ideas, on their own time,
using their own equipment, and on their own money.
In some cases, the contributors were consultants who were
using client equipment, but with the understanding that
their contributions to Mosaic was not covered under "Work for Hire"
provisions.
There were even some people who were working as employees
for privately held corporations (I was working for Dow Jones much
of this time) who had no interest in the Web browser until
after Netscape went public. Most of these employers had already
given away their intellectual property rights.
> > About two weeks before Microsoft was approached, NCSA unilaterally
> > changed the terms of the license, giving NCSA the right to do
whatever
> > it wanted. This was done ex-post-facto, and was a direct violation
> > of the trust which led to hundreds of contributions, upgrades, and
> > bug-fixes contributed by companies who would NEVER have given their
> > code directly to Microsoft. Some of these contributors included
> > companies like Sun, HP, SGI, and other UNIX vendors. The LAST
> > thing they would have wanted would have been to have Mosaic put
> > directly inder the control of Microsoft.
>
> Mosaic isn't and never was put directly
> under the control of Microsoft.
The key is that Microsoft now has the right to make inlimited
modifications, for any purpose, without being required to make
those enhancements available to the public in source format.
This was a key provision in the original code, a provision whithout
which, contributions would have been diverted to an alternate project
(as they were eventually directed to Arena).
> Mosaic still exists and is Microsoft free.
Correct. It's a dead horse. No one wants to touch it.
> Microsoft only had the rights to
> modify their own version.
This was the key issue from the very beginning. The contributors
had agreed to allow "Branding Rigts", which would have included
the right to put different logos in the corners, to change the
home to a corporate site, and to preload the "favorites" file
(similar to bookmarks) with a set of preferred sites.
One of the big issues was that some people wanted to do plug-ins
like Netscape's. There was a resounding "No" vote within the
mosaic newsgroup. The discussion was very adamant in it's opposition
to creating the ability to graft proprietary code to the core Open
Source software. Prophetically, one of the biggest concerns was
that it would promote the proliferation of proprietary standards
like PDF, Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, instead of promoting open
standards like HTML, GIF, and JPEG. Ironically, no one objected
to the GIF patent, as long as the implementation was available
in source code format.
> > When the news broke that (I thought it was Spry - not Spyglass),
> > had sold unconditional modification rights to Microsoft, along
> > with the protection of comprehensive nondisclosures, the flack
> > flew with a vengence.
>
> From the IE "About" dialog:
>
> "Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM);
> was developed at the National Center
> for Supercomputing Applications at
> the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
> Distributed under a licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc."
>
> In any event, even if what you said is true,
> Microsoft has done no wrong.
Microsoft may have done with Spyglass to get Mosaic what they did
with SCC to get CP/M. SCC had been granted permission to reassemble
the source code to CP/M-80 using an 8086 assembler which made it
possible to run it on an 8086 machine. SCC had specifically been
granted permission to use this product on embedded systems.
SCC sold the code to Paul Allen, and Paul Allen stretch the
interpretation of embedded systems to include "terminals". Since
the first 8088 PC was actually a souped up 3270 terminal (the circuitry
was very similar and most of the team had been working in the terminal
division).
Digital Research settled out of Court because the guy who sold QDOS
to Paul Allen had already spent most of the $100,000 he had received
and wasn't even worth the legal fees to file the case. Shortly after
all claims were settled, the employees of SCC were either hired by
Microsoft or paid off ($900,000) making the "Real Deal" worth about
$1 million.
In the case of Spyglass, Microsoft used Spyglass and had spyglass
sell "branding versions" to AOL and Prodigy before Microsoft
altered the contract, signed it, and gave Spyglass a very short
turn-around time. Rather than expose Spyglass to liability (and
forfeit the $10 million spyglass had already raised), the NCSA
published a revised contract. The developers cried "foul", most
stopped contributing to both Mosaic and the NCSA web server, and
eventually they formed the Apache group which returned to the
original terms (actually slightly more GPL-ish).
At one point, there was discussion of a class-action suit, but
the consensus was that the cost of trying to sue the government
would be far greater than the amount it received from Microsoft.
> *IF* what you said is true (which I doubt),
> then NCSA would be the ones that
> violated anything.
They violated a public trust. Most of the contributors have
taken control away from NCSA through the formation of Apache,
Arena, and support for Linux.
> > I had written the specifications to 5 major enhancements which
> > were critical to e-commerce. This included specifications for
> > SHTTP, SSL, Cookies, and htaccess, along with the original
> > specifications for the earliest web browser (Viola). I put
> > them on the internet. In several cases, I even published them
> > under the terms of the GNU general public license.
>
> Considering that e-commerce didn't even exist then,
> I find that hard to believe.
Remember, I was wery active in the entire commercialization of
the internet from 1992 on. Part of that effort included working
closely with the NCSA development teams - via e-mail, and with
the publishers.
> It's my understanding that Netscape published the cookie
> specification as well as SSL. At least RFC 2246 says so.
This is correct. It was drafted by a usenet newsgroup and
two mailing lists (one for the client, one for the server),
and the concept was specified in that forum. Because SSL
depended on the use of both Public Key (RSA) and Private Key (DSL),
and there was too much contriversy around PGP at the time (the RSA
lawsuit, federal prosecution of the PGP authors, and classification
of PGP as munitions by the Clinton Administration, Netscape
published the specification and provided secure distribution.
> > Of course, since I was a faceless personality on the internet
> > and the online-newspapers and online-news mailing lists (currently
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]), I was pretty much anonymous,
> > which was appropriate for that period of my life. I have included
> > some of the work I did to "put the 'com' in '.com'" on my personal
> > web site.
>
> So you're saying that Netscape "stole" the
> credit for the work you did?
No, I was one of about 8 people who collaborated via e-mail.
I wrote a spec and some pseudo-code. That was formed into
code stubs, and the code stubs were integrated into the next
month's release of Mosaic. The SSL was integrated into Netscape
(because the NCSA couldn't control distribution - it could be
downloaded by the restricted countries). Netscape then published
the source code to the SSL "hook" which could be downloaded from
Netscape and integrated into Mosaic and later, Arena.
> Not even giving you a passing reference?
Actually, on 3 separate occaisions they offered me a position
with the company. In each case, I had just accepted a new
position and was no longer available.
Also, when I wrote to Jim Barksdale, and suggested that if
Microsoft wanted to give away browsers with their operating
system, then Netscape could give away Operating Systems with
their browser - (Linux). Less than one week later, Netscape
and Caldera had a joint licensing agreement in which Caldera
provided the Operating System and Netscape provided the Browser.
Within a month, Netscape had a deal with Red Hat.
> If you published under GPL, you would
> have had to have used your name in the copyright.
Like I said, I'd posted the spec and pseudo code with a
copyright notice and statement that this material was
published under the terms of the GPL. Specifications
are often implemented without reference to their source.
I was deliberately anonymous during this period. My employer
knew what I was doing, didn't care what I did on my own time,
and didn't want to be implicated in anything that would upset
their relations with Microsoft. At that time, Microsoft was
still designing MSN under the "single service" model - similar
to AOL or Prodigy. My work in commercializing the internet
had to be done covertly. Eventually, I was approached by
reporters and was told that I could not make any public
statements. Greg Gerdy became my "Face" on the DowVision
on the Net project. He began going on speaking tours, using
reports I had written for him at his request.
All of this is on my web site www.open4success.com/bio
Keep in mind that in January 1993, there were only about 200
people who could even conceive of what the Internet would
eventually become. One was Brewster Kahle who had left Thinking
Machines to form a company based on his WAIS search engine, the
grandaddy of nearly all of the modern search engines used on web
portals. Another was Chuck Menges who managed Colorado Supernet,
one of the first ISPs to offer direct-to-the-public access to the
Internet. Another was Vint Cerf, who was snagged by MCI at around
the same time I was working with their frame-relay sales director
(Rocky Mountain Region) to put businesses and NSF traffic on the
same TCP/IP links. Another was Steve Outings, who started the
first internet based mailing list for publishers who wanted
to publish content on the internet. Another was Mindy McAdams,
who was pivotal in helping us reach the "non-geek" markets,
especially sports and women's interests. Most of these people
are people you will probably never see on the cover of Forbes,
because they aren't CEOs of multi-billion dollar companies, just
the guys who stoked the fires of these multi-billion dollar
companies.
You've seen my postings, and you are probably somewhat aware of the
volume of traffic I post - as many as 300 articles/month. Imagine
the impact of that number of postings - each relatively articulate
and informative, every day, to a network of nearly 8000 publishers,
4000 ISPs, and 3000 POPs.
Sun put the "dot" in "dot-com". I put the "com" in "dot-com", and
I didn't do it alone. It was more like the rodents who ate the
dinosours. Most of the members of these groups were tech-heads
who took my postings, put their name on them, and prettied them up
with Microsoft Word, and passed them up the chain to top management.
In many cases, the name on the bottom was removed (mine) and the
next manager up the chain of command put his name on top.
I'm living a very nice life. I get paid well for doing what I love
to do, and there are plenty of people who are willing to pay me more
if I wanted it. I get to travel, I get to make new friends, I get
to go to some Linux Expos, and I get to generate new markets for new
products. I'm an IT architect, not a CEO. I'd hate to have to spend
80% of my time trying to manage cash-flow and decide who else's ideas
would get funded or not. I love working as a consultant for companies
who have "hit the wall" and are looking for a "Problem Solver". I love
working with companies who are ready to try some outrageous ideas to
achieve outrageous results.
Sure, if I had purchased 200 shares of every company I'd impacted in
a positive way, I'd be a gazillionaire. On the other hand, some of
those companies were a roller coaster ride for several years and some
were transformed and transmuted beyond recognition. Companies like
ClickShare, First Virtual Holdings, and New Century Networks no longer
exist, their pioneering technology has been absorbed by mergers and
aquisitions.
> > > > For example, the IETF publishes specifications for nearly every
> > > > protocol used on the internet, except for the proprietary stuff
> > > > used by Microsoft. There was a reason for this in 1982 and it's
> > > > just as valid today. It was believed that regardless of how
good
> > > > the security system was, if traffic went across the internet
that
> > > > couldn't be indentified, traced, and audited, then the entire
> > > > infrastructure was vulnerable to attack.
> > >
> > > And which protocols might those be?
> > > There aren't many of them.
> >
> > TCP/IP, IP, DNS, HTTP, HTML, MIME, TCP/IP over PPP, Frame Relay,
and
> > ATM, arp, smtp, nntp, snmp - in all over 3000 RFCs covering
everything
> > from the IP address to multimedia.
>
> No, which PROPRIETARY protocols from MS would that be?
>
> > > Even many of the protocols Microsoft developed
> > > or co-developed exist as RFC's.
> > > PPTP for instance.
> >
> > This is true. On the other hand, MOST of Microsoft's specifications
> > are incomplete or ambiguous. This includes MS-CHAP, WINS, for
several
> > years SMB, and Imap, and most recently DCOM and ActiveX.
Furthermore,
> > most of these measures were proposed as a means of allowing
Microsoft
> > to transmit binaries - some of which contain executable code -
across
> > the internet.
>
> I don't think MS invented IMAP. And ActiveX is
> fully documented by the Open
> Group and has been for years.
The problem with the ActiveX specification is that it specifies
the wrapper, the shell, the envelope, but it hides all indications
of the contents. Given that ActiveX controls are effectively
executable code passing from a server to a client, all you have
done is relieved the hacker of the inconvenience of having to
have a user ID and password to execute his trashing code.
Fortunately, it's a federal crime to do this, and there are
enough open standards in place that it's becoming easier to
trace this type of hacking back to it's origins, and most of
the perpetrators are either more committed to stealth (getting
your customer list without you knowing they have been there),
or more committed to recognition (the "Kilroy was Here" posts).
Hopefully we won't have to deal with the spectre of cyber-mercenaries
who use untracable access to trash - every PC used for online
trading, for example. Imagin what would happen if one of these guys
decided to publish concurrent sell orders from every Ameritrade,
E-trade, and Suretrade customer on the interet - within a 30 minute
time frame.
> > One of the reasons ARPA formed what is now the IETF in the first
> > place was to prevent the unfiltered proliferation of executible
> > binaries across the internet.
>
> Funny, I thought it was formed to promote open protocol standards.
>
> > Using FTP to download a program,
> > and then choosing to execute that program gives a substantial
> > audit trail including the TCP connection log, the FTP transfer log,
> > the image stored on the hard drive, and in the case of files FTP'd
> > using a web browser, the HTTP log. There is still a chance that
> > the DNS name was spoofed, the IP address was spoofed into the
router,
> > and that the binaries will erase themselves after doing their
damage,
> > but these are security risks that can be identified, managed, and
> > mitigated. Using ActiveX, a hacker can put his content on an
> > unsuspecting site, register the control using information
> > obtained from a wallet left with a coat-check service, and
> > let unsuspecting users download programs that send confidential
> > files (e-mail, passwords, whatever) to competitors, or to the
> > "highest bidder".
>
> The key word here is "can". To date, I know of no registered activex
> control that does this. It's a long shot.
Actually, when ActiveX first came out, a site called
www.ultrviolet.org sponsored by our own Tracy Reed, listed
a number of different "hacks" that were possible using ActiveX.
Visitors were shown examples of how these controls exposed the
system. All but one - the one that said "Don't push this button",
were harmless. The marked button was surrounded with text explaining
that what it did was erased every file on your hard drive and replaced
every byte with randomly generated characters (assuring no possibility
of file recovery).
Eventually, the example were removed at the request of FBI agents
who had discovered a group of hackers that had used the ultraviolet
examples to create some really malicious code, specifically for
reading other people's e-mail. They were clued in by a sudden
flurry of traffic around 3:00 A.M.
>
> Nonsense. I've never told the browser
> to accept all content for anything,
Of course not. That's the default for the browser.
> and I don't get "inundated" and in fact very
> rarely do I see any kind of
> request except for a few common controls
> from verified sources (such as
> Macromedia Flash).
> Something you fail to mention is that "confirm mode" is
> the default mode.
When I've used a corporate installation (Prudential),
ActiveX was entirely disabled an couldn't be enabled. This
used to frustrate me because I did want to see the MSN Portfolio
charting feature and scrolling headlines.
When I installed Windows 98, with IE4, the defaults were to accept
all controls from trusted authorities, Verisign and Microsoft were
both preset as trusted authorities.
When I installed ActiveX on a Netscape Browser, Verisign was trusted,
but Microsoft was not preset (the first visit to MSN triggered a
"do you want to trust this authority?). I kept saying no, and
accidentally hit the wrong button.
Some companies create their own signing authority for connections
within the firewall. The firewall and the firewall router blocks
and flags all attempts to connect to any of the known signing
authorities. It works, but it gives an indication of the concern
that these companies have over this technology.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 22:53:23 GMT
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:26:23 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Christopher Smith wrote:
>>
>> > What on earth for ? No one using SOlaris on Sun is going to have the
>> > slightest interest in NT. Ditto $UNIX on PPC.
>> >
>>
>> I think you mean $UNIX on Apple, not PPC. Unix on PPC exists and is
>popular -
>> AIX. I used to have a 4-way SMP PPC (604e) running AIX on my desk at
>work
>> until they upgraded me to a Power 3 machine.
>
>What I was saying is that no-one[1] using Unix on a PPC machine is going to
>be interested in plonking NT onto that machine, even if they could.
>
>[1] "No-one" being a somewhat exxaggerated way of saying "stuff all people".
Considering that NT on platforms other than x86 was somewhat of
a joke, and Microsoft's general lack of commitment for non-x86
hardware, this is somewhat of a circular argument.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:51:32 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> > It's somewhat unfair to compare a commercial OS (that has to be profitable)
> > to free OSes like that.
>
> Why? If they claim it is portable, then porting it to other platforms
> should be part of the business model. If the OS is not portable, stop
> calling it portable.
Come on, mlw, even you're smarter than that.
NT's design is portable. It just isn't compiled and sold for other platforms
because it didn't sell.
It was designed and developed on a RISC platform. Read the article where they
interview David Cutler.
> You mean to tell me that NT on a power PC wouldn't be an interresting
> market?
Appearently not, as it didn't sell worth crap.
> How about NT on Sun hardware?
That's interesting. However, I'm sure MS's business forcasters are probably
much better at predicting profitability in various markets. Perhaps they're
planning it, who knows?
> These are targets that should make marketing people drool. Maybe not for sales
of
> that product, but for the argument that NT is portable and therefore a viable
option.
It's already proven it's portable. It runs on MIPS, PPC, Alpha, and x86. It
could
run on just about anything given the right HAL. However, lest you forget, MS has
to make money, as those developers don't come cheap. It's not worth wasting
their
time on a platform that no one would use.
Besides, consider the support costs. One of MS's biggest expenses is support for
their products, the last thing they want to do is grow their support costs
exponentially
while not increasing their profits by any respectable amount.
> As it is now, portability of NT is, at best, a joke.
It isn't supported on those platforms, but it certainly could, and has.
Are you really so blind that you forget this? Out of sight out of mind?
Just because MS doesn't compile a HAL for those platforms anymore doesn't
mean that it couldn't run on them with not that much effort on MS part.
> > Quite nice ? Just who was making machines that could run it ? How about
> > software ?
>
> Actually SGI was using mips. It was a political move more than anything.
How many MIPS boxes are SGI selling compared to x86 boxes by Compaq, Dell,
Micron,
et al? A lot less, you can be assured. How would MS make money on these
platforms?
> > In some ways. It's common, cheap and fast, relatively speaking.
>
> x86 hardware is cheap, that is, more or less, its only advantage.
It's fast enough, and it's common, which is the most important point.
Your Beta player is much better than your VHS player, but good luck finding
videos for it. Which, in essence, makes the Beta player worthless.
Likewise, MS isn't going to through money away on platforms that don't
sell well. MS doesn't have any obligations to Intel anymore since Intel has
taken it upon itself to branch out and screw MS on several occasions, and
MS has favored AMD on several occasions (albeit, few).
If PowerPC became an overnight success and started taking over the market,
then MS would build an NT/2K port for it because they'd make money on it.
Until then, don't expect any ports.
-Chad
> --
> Mohawk Software
> Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
> "We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
> lobster"
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 80286 Question : was : I WAS WRONG
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:59:29 -0800
I always found it strange that so many people still think that
MS/PC-Dos is the original and DR-Dos is the clone. When
in fact Digital Research's is the original and Microsoft's was
the substandard clone.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:05:26 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8c0kld$lk2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Heh, how lame.
> >The problem is he's asking something that he knows is not the way
> >NT does things. In effect, he's creating a strawman.
>
>
> When you think your back is against the wall you change the
> subject. The only strawman in this branch of this thread is your
> tendancy to cry strawman. I am not employing any disinformation
> tatics of any kind including strawmen, I hope you are not consiously
> using the disinformation tatic of claiming that disinformation tatics
> are being used on you and thereby distracting attention away from
> a failure or short comming of you position.
<sigh> Give me a break. Why must you guys be dicks about this?
You know you're wrong, you know you've set up a strawman, and you attempt
to chastize me for not playing along.
The criteria he set up were highly directred and rather illogical.
He didn't really even outline his preferred goals, he just basically
said "How can I make NT do things with the *nix paradigm?" which is
obviously a loaded question.
He was trolling, quit bullshitting us and drop it.
If you want a rational debate, then quit with the childish strawmen
antics.
And if you want us to outline how NT could perform tasks similar
to this, then you shouldn't direct your questions towards *nix.
*PL0NK*
When you're ready to debate like an adult and try to learn something,
let us know, until then, quit wasting our time, ok?
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
