Linux-Advocacy Digest #67, Volume #26 Mon, 10 Apr 00 21:13:30 EDT
Contents:
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (Bloody Viking)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? ("Drestin Black")
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? ("Drestin Black")
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? ("Drestin Black")
Re: Copyrights etc. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ("Drestin Black")
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Josiah Fizer)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ("Drestin Black")
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ("Drestin Black")
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux vs. Windows Benchmark ("Drestin Black")
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Tom Mitchell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:33:50 GMT
In alt.destroy.microsoft Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: StarOffice is bloated, requiring a goodly 32MB (hardly "using the same
: old hardware seemingly forever"), and as for file format, there's little
: guarantee that it won't change. Ditto for WordPerfect, ApplixWare,
: KDE Office, and GNOME's "office" software.
OK, but with Linux, to mount a CD takes logging in a root. The Dogbert
can't "just" upgrade and later corrupt the files on everyone else. It
would slow down the upgrade bullshit. Also, in this Linux office, you
avoid Solitaire too. The productivity lost to Solitaire would in some cube
farms justify the Linux conversion! The workers, unable to mount floppies
even if they could ever find Solitair for Linux, can't just install
software from home.
Upgrading would be at the discretion of the Admins, not a lame Dogbert who
doesn't know about Save-As. This would slow it down a lot. Not to mention
old machines being recyclable as low-traffic servers or terminals of
different kinds.
Ideally, what we need is an open file format for word processors. And
there is one, Postscript. What we need is for the DoJ to decree that
Postscript be made the standard word processor format.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:36:07 -0400
"David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I read it. I also read the articles in Networking, and the Wall Street
Journal. This is common knowledge
> for the literate.
>
> The lab that actually found the key notified the NSA first! Maybe you
don't have access to well known
> publications by CMP. I understand that ZD is more your level so that is
why you never heard it before
> now.
factually incorrect: they did NOT notify the NSA first. They went public
first hoping to get some publicity and embaress MS.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:34:42 -0400
Oh, i understand your concern but you have it wrong.
See I was recently conversing with a person that I know well, who happens to
work in computer security at the NSA.
According to this indivual, he was present in a meeting where "backdoors"
into the Linux OS were discussed.
I can not personally vouch for the accuracy of this information, but thought
that it might deserve to be spammed and trolled as far and wide for purely
anti-Linux purposes.
At this meeting, it was explained that Linus had secretly coded two
"backdoor" protocols in the TCP/IP stack of Linux but wrote the remarks in
Finish so no one could decode them and changing the work of a living god is
prohibited and peer review of such a diety is not even necessary.
can anyone confirm this?
I don't need or want any denials because those will not advance my purposes,
just confirmations will do. Silence equals aquiessence of the facts and is
good too.
...sigh... how pathetic..
"anon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I was recently conversing with a person that I know well, who happens to
work in
> computer security at the NSA.
>
> According to this individual, he was present in a meeting where
"backdoors" into the
> Windows 2000 OS were discussed.
> I can not personally vouch for hte accuracy of this information, but
thought that it might deserve
>
> some public scrutiny.
> At this meeting, it was explained that Microsoft had installed two
"backdoor" protocols in the
> TCP/IP stack of Windows 2000.
> The first was put in place to allow the FBI and other federal agencies to
surreptitiously log in
> to
> any Win2000 machine connected to the internet and passively examine files
looking for evidence of
> terrorism or criminal enterprise.
> The second was installed by Microsoft for its own use, in the event of
passage of the UCITA or
> "Shrink-wrap law". Should this law be enacted, MS will periodically log on
to all Win 2000 servers
>
> on the internet looking for unlicensed software and deleting anything that
it finds.
>
> Can anyone confirm this?
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:36:35 -0400
ALLLLLLl of these based on the same original *GUESS* made by some anti-MS
guys living in paranoia land
"David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Just shut your mouth and open your eyes and ears.
>
> http://homepage.tinet.ie/~muintc/hackal.htm
>
http://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/Microsoft_Windows_contains_a_cryptogr
aphic_backdoor_.html
> http://www.collectonyourjudgment.com/privacy/infoga.htm
> http://rc.sdnp.undp.org/rc/forums/mgr/sdnpmgrs/msg01238.html
> http://linuxtoday.com/stories/9533.html
> http://smart.online.fr/privacy/Part2
> http://amug.org/~glguerin/opinion/win-nsa-key.html
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Copyrights etc.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:37:28 GMT
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:21:22 GMT, Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In alt.destroy.microsoft Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: No, the copyright model "ensures" no such thing. Assuming a competitive
>: market, the copyright model works, and works very well. The fact that a
>: company has used anticompetitive practices is not the fault of the copyright
>: model.
Yes it is. That thing with which they can wield control over the
industry is just another copyrighted work. They can use ownership
of that work to exclude competitors and make it more difficult for
those that might choose to avoid that 'work' as an essential facility.
This distinguishes software from Music or Books. Niether of those are
limited by some essential facility that one must also buy. Music and
Books are constrained by whether or not they are specifically made with
on of those 'essential facilities' in mind or another. Producers of
Books and Music don't have to worry about the extra costs associated
with ensuring that ALL potential consumers can buy and use their work.
>
>That's just it. There's competition with novels and textbooks like crazy.
>In the case of books, it works well indeed. Same with music. But software
>apparently is different. Like anything else, copyright can be abused, like
>Scientology. Microsoft's anticompetitive habits also depend on abusing
>copyright.
Books and Music are completely open formats. No one owns the 'keys'
to their use.
--
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: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:37:53 -0400
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ct3s9$icu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > In article <38f1d5b8$8$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>On 04/10/2000 at 12:08 AM,
> >> Steve White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >>
> >>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, anon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> > Can anyone confirm this?
> >>
> >>> How 'bout you identify yourself and your sources first?
> >>
> >>How about articles in the Wall Street Journal, PC Magazine, and the
> >>Washington Post.
> >>
> >>Moreover, MS admitted publically that those hooks were in the Windows
2000
> >>beta.
>
> > Another Germer lie. MS admitted nothing about backdoors in their
> > products. Can you find where they admitted to leaving backdoors for the
> > government? I didn't think you could. I believe that the government
> > could put them under enough pressure to do it, all in the interest of
> > "national security", but they have not publically admitted any such
thing.
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2331412,00.html
>
> Idiot.
fortunately pook - this was LONG LONG ago fixed...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:41:30 -0400
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > > > I got a better virus than that, if you're gonna use "su".
> > > >
> > > > $ su
> > > > Password:
> > > > # rm -rf /
> > > >
> > > > It may be somewhat subtle, but it works....
> > >
> > > oh way, I thought "su" didn't necessarily mean root - so, what if a
> > su to
> > > guest or something like that - not very fatal eh?
>
> Dres, you twit, su defaults to root. Sure, su guest would swithc to guest,
> but he just used su with no options.
>
you missed the sarcasm becuase of a previous thread. I know what su defaults
to but ... never mind, it *was* funny once...
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:44:27 -0700
Drestin Black wrote:
> Oh, i understand your concern but you have it wrong.
>
> See I was recently conversing with a person that I know well, who happens to
> work in computer security at the NSA.
>
> According to this indivual, he was present in a meeting where "backdoors"
> into the Linux OS were discussed.
> I can not personally vouch for the accuracy of this information, but thought
> that it might deserve to be spammed and trolled as far and wide for purely
> anti-Linux purposes.
> At this meeting, it was explained that Linus had secretly coded two
> "backdoor" protocols in the TCP/IP stack of Linux but wrote the remarks in
> Finish so no one could decode them and changing the work of a living god is
> prohibited and peer review of such a diety is not even necessary.
>
> can anyone confirm this?
> I don't need or want any denials because those will not advance my purposes,
> just confirmations will do. Silence equals aquiessence of the facts and is
> good too.
>
> ...sigh... how pathetic..
>
I can confirm this. This shocking truth was told to me by an Incan Monky god who
came to me in a vision of twin burning towers. He said that Linus was a high
ranking member of the Bavarian Illuminati, and that he and the NSA where ploting
to steal my subway tolkens.
The only way to stop the NSA and the Bavarians from getting all of the data on
your harddrive and in your right front pants pocket is to wrap your head in tin
foil while chanting the lyircs to We are the world over and over again in
finish.
I would tell you more, but I feel there eyes on me. Please stop them before I
kill again.
>
> "anon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I was recently conversing with a person that I know well, who happens to
> work in
> > computer security at the NSA.
> >
> > According to this individual, he was present in a meeting where
> "backdoors" into the
> > Windows 2000 OS were discussed.
> > I can not personally vouch for hte accuracy of this information, but
> thought that it might deserve
> >
> > some public scrutiny.
> > At this meeting, it was explained that Microsoft had installed two
> "backdoor" protocols in the
> > TCP/IP stack of Windows 2000.
> > The first was put in place to allow the FBI and other federal agencies to
> surreptitiously log in
> > to
> > any Win2000 machine connected to the internet and passively examine files
> looking for evidence of
> > terrorism or criminal enterprise.
> > The second was installed by Microsoft for its own use, in the event of
> passage of the UCITA or
> > "Shrink-wrap law". Should this law be enacted, MS will periodically log on
> to all Win 2000 servers
> >
> > on the internet looking for unlicensed software and deleting anything that
> it finds.
> >
> > Can anyone confirm this?
> >
> >
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:43:54 -0400
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8cj1vb$14an$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Then why not do this 'benchmark' on a Windows 2000 machine with the
indexing
> > service running. Find ANY file (or files or folders) in under a second
every
> > time, including text within most file types and based on dates, size,
> > attributes, keywords, summary, copyrights, versions, whatever. A fully
> > indexed file system... hows locate compare now?
>
> cd /
> find * | cat >> biglist
> alias locate=grepinbig
>
> (grepinbig)
> grep -i $input /biglist | less
>
> That was really...ummm...
>
> Hard.
>
>
I'm sorry but I look at all that crap you just wrote and think - someone
actually thinks that's easy? That someone would actually WANT to type all
that crap in? That someone would wanna do that when they could just click in
a little search box and hit "search" and get the results instantly. And be
able to see them all on the screen at once and actually be able to do things
with the result set on the screen... that's easy? better?
No, sorry... no way.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:45:55 -0400
Oh my god - and you think that your version is easier or better?
People - don't you even realize what you are typing? How in the WORLD do you
consider that drivel easier or better? It takes longer to type in and can be
typed wrong and ... oh never mind, you'll never learn.
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on Thu, 06 Apr 2000 22:26:22 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Hey Drestin!!!
> >
> > We don't even have to show Linux is for geeks anymore. The
> >geeks are doing it for us!!!!
> >
> >Can't wait to show my bartender that command. He's gonna love it :(
> >
> >Steve
> >On 6 Apr 2000 22:09:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> >
> >>Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Then why not do this 'benchmark' on a Windows 2000 machine with
> >>> the indexing service running. Find ANY file (or files or folders)
> >>> in under a second every time, including text within most file types
> >>> and based on dates, size, attributes, keywords, summary, copyrights,
> >>> versions, whatever. A fully indexed file system... hows locate
> >>> compare now?
> >>
> >>cd /
> >>find * | cat >> biglist
> >>alias locate=grepinbig
> >>
> >>(grepinbig)
> >>grep -i $input /biglist | less
> >>
> >>That was really...ummm...
> >>
> >>Hard.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>-----yttrx
> >>
> >
>
> You've gotta be kidding me.
>
> This is *geeky*??
>
> This is *simple*. Slightly flawed, but simple nonetheless.
>
> My version would be
>
> find / > /var/spool/biglist
> alias locate=grepinbig
>
> (grepinbig)
> grep -i "$input" /var/spool/biglist
>
> and my version is still slightly flawed, in that it can't handle
> an argument beginning with a dash (grep looks at one funny). I'm
> not sure if I'd want to use
>
> grep -i "\\$input" /var/spool/biglist
>
> or not; I'd have to test it. But everyone in Unixland will understand
> the merits of redirect ('>') -- heck, even DOS had that one -- and
> how to run a simple shell script (or, if you prefer, a .BAT file --
> DOS had that too). (There's also the issue of the speed of grep
> versus a more specialized solution such as a lookup in a sorted
> database.)
>
> The entire question is a bit flawed anyway. Anyone with a half a
> brain cell should at least be able to locate certain keys on a
> keyboard (if only by gawk, hunt, and peck), and type in simple,
> well-known, highly documented (and reliable!) commands. One
> would also assume that people in Technical support would rather
> hear something like:
>
> Clueless Newbie: "Uh, how do I backup my system?"
>
> Technical Support Person: "OK, Are you root?"
>
> CN: "Yes."
>
> TCP: "And you have a 4 mm tape drive?"
>
> CN: "Uh...you mean the thing I put these small black cartridges into?"
>
> TCP: "Yes."
>
> CN: "Yes, I have one."
>
> TCP: "Put a fresh tape in."
>
> CN: (pause) "OK."
>
> TCP: "OK, now just type in tee ay are space dash see eff slash dev slash
> ess tee 0 space slash." ('tar -cf /dev/st0 /')
>
> CN: (pause) "OK...it's chugging away...Thanks!"
>
> as opposed to:
>
> CN: "Uh, how do I backup my system?"
>
> TCP: "OK, which backup package do you have installed?"
>
> CN: (identifies backup package)
>
> TCP: "OK, you have to find the icon that looks like a pretty flower
> beating a small box." [*]
>
> CN: (pause) "Uh...where is this icon?"
>
> TCP: "It should be right next to the icon that looks a bit like a
> box tromping on a pretty flower. (That's your restore function.)"
>
> CN: (longer pause) "All I see is a box and a flower dancing,
> with a bee in the background. It's kinda fuzzy. There's
> also an icon with a squiggly thing and a rectangle, and
> another with a rectangle and a squiggly thing underneath it,
> and one with a rectangle with little lines on it, right next
> to a squiggly thing..."
>
> TCP: (sounds of moaning and hair dropping on the floor after
> being torn out) :-)
>
> Well, OK, this is contrived, but I'm sure that Technical Support
> has dealt with many people out there that can't tell the difference
> between various icon logos -- especially at 16x16, although most
> Windows logos on the desktop will be 32x32.
>
> And various stories about CD-ROM "cup holders", rebooting machines
> (or trying to reboot machines) before replugging them into a power
> strip, and other rather silly problems are legion. :-)
>
> (This also might illustrate why good graphics artists are
> so highly paid. :-) I for one couldn't draw a bee *or* a flower,
> although I might be able to manage drawing a box...)
>
> [*] There is a TV commercial regarding a prescription allergy medication
> that has a gigantic dandelion (?) beating on a poor woman who's
> trying to play tennis (and sneezing instead); after the obligatory
> shill for the actual product, the dandelion is simply stepped on
> (although on a well-maintained tennis court, dandelions wouldn't be
> *there* to be stepped on -- but oh well). I guess that's where
> I got this idea from. :-)
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- proof once again that silly ideas
> transcend "the generation gap" :-)
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:47:00 -0400
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Then why not do this 'benchmark' on a Windows 2000 machine with the
indexing
> > service running. Find ANY file (or files or folders) in under a second
every
> > time, including text within most file types and based on dates, size,
> > attributes, keywords, summary, copyrights, versions, whatever. A fully
> > indexed file system... hows locate compare now?
>
> Because it is a stupid benchmark.
>
> Both OSes can do any of the above.
because W2K can do it easier and faster and it takes absolutely no
experience at the CLI to know how to do it, a novice using W2K can do this
day one...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs. Windows Benchmark
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:49:25 -0400
"Chris Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8cl3u2$cei$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8ck0i7$q3b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Ha ha...You can't!
> >>
> >> The Linux crowd runs and hides ever time the word "benchmark" is
> >> mentioned.
> >
> >This is a benchmark using NetBench 5.01 in a typical configuration
> >of both Linux and NT.
> >http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,4537,2196106,00.html
> >
> >Microsoft spent 6 months trying to come up with a benchmark
> >that favored Microsoft and came out with the mindcraft benchmarks.
>
>
> We are going to be seeing fewer and fewer of these benchmark comparisons
> bettween Linux and Windows in the future as Linux ports on hardware like
the
> S/390's become widespread. Companies like Mindcraft and magazines like PC
> Mag don't have the knowlege or the skills to deal with Linux and this kind
> of hardware.
>
oh - that is funny - that is REALLY funny. And, say, I thought linvocates
tell us that any system running Linux is so much cheaper (cause according to
them the cost of the OS makes up 92% of the TCO of the system) that I'm sure
PC Mag and Mindcraft can afford the hardware. And as for the knowledge or
skills - the last time Mindcraft invited the best Linux people to it's own
labs linux STILL lost huge. Who do you need to tune linux before it'll work;
a personal visit from linus?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:57:24 GMT
Ain't it a riot?
These nuts actually believe in this shit.
And worse yet, their collective sorry assed geek souls think that
others in the free world are interested in this tripe.
It is HYSTERICAL!!!!!!
Steve
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:43:54 -0400, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8cj1vb$14an$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Then why not do this 'benchmark' on a Windows 2000 machine with the
>indexing
>> > service running. Find ANY file (or files or folders) in under a second
>every
>> > time, including text within most file types and based on dates, size,
>> > attributes, keywords, summary, copyrights, versions, whatever. A fully
>> > indexed file system... hows locate compare now?
>>
>> cd /
>> find * | cat >> biglist
>> alias locate=grepinbig
>>
>> (grepinbig)
>> grep -i $input /biglist | less
>>
>> That was really...ummm...
>>
>> Hard.
>>
>>
>
>I'm sorry but I look at all that crap you just wrote and think - someone
>actually thinks that's easy? That someone would actually WANT to type all
>that crap in? That someone would wanna do that when they could just click in
>a little search box and hit "search" and get the results instantly. And be
>able to see them all on the screen at once and actually be able to do things
>with the result set on the screen... that's easy? better?
>
>No, sorry... no way.
>
------------------------------
From: Tom Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:59:54 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Christopher Browne wrote:
> >What's wrong with Modula-3? ;)
>
> Nothing in particular.
>
> Of course, it wouldn't make sense to *merely* rewrite it in Modula-3;
> it would make *more* sense to do some redesign to take advantage of
> the functionality Modula-3 offers.
>
> It's an interesting idea; some of the people that waste time
> blathering about redoing Linux in C++ should take a look at the M3
Are there M3 compilers in the gnu world that are up to the task?
At least three processor targets.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
