Linux-Advocacy Digest #177, Volume #26 Tue, 18 Apr 00 03:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Another crosses the floor (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Which Linux and which hardcopy? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software? (Marty)
Re: Another crosses the floor (Terry Porter)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software? (abraxas)
Re: Linux for a web developer (Christopher Browne)
Mandrake 7.0 Vs SuSE 6.4 ("OOrkis")
Re: Rumors ... (Osugi Sakae)
Re: DCOM versus CORBA, some history ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Jeff Glatt)
Re: Athlon (Charles Blackburn)
Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Jeff Glatt)
Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!! (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Another crosses the floor
Date: 18 Apr 2000 00:24:03 -0400
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:10:57 GMT, David S. Hamilton wrote:
Hiya Dave. Glad to see you having fun with Linux. Like you say, Linux
doesn't require you to have a PhD in CS -- what's important is a little
patience, reading and a can-do attitude, and it looks like you fit that
description.
Python is a nice language to get started programming. The online docs for
it are quite nice. For the shell-scripting, you may want to take a look
at a book called "learning the bash shell".
If you're interested in GUI programming, you may want to take a look
at QT and GTK. Both of these are quality object oriented toolkits.
Also, take a look at my tutorials at http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
You may find some of the stuff on grep, sed and regexs interesting.
Have fun with Linux.
Cheers,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Which Linux and which hardcopy?
Date: 18 Apr 2000 00:33:09 -0400
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:10:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>thinking of Mandrake, Red Hat or SUSE, and would also like to purchase
>some hard copy documentation.
SuSE: comes with a decent users guide
Redhat -- you'll need to get yourself a book. Go to your nearest
Borders/Barnes and noble and pick something up.
I think most of the books assume some computer background -- if you don't
have *some* , you're not likely to be installing Linux.
I like "Redhat premium edition", ( or something ) from Sybex publishing
( if you're using Mandrake or Redhat ). I'm not sure if that'd be too
verbose for your tastes. The OReilly and associates titles tend to
be more concise.
>will probably be doing software development on Linux, for education if
>nothing else. Given that, what advice can you give on my choices? Is
>there a chart anywhere comparing what is included in the various
>distributions? Would I be better off wait for the 2.4 kernel?
Don't bother waiting for new kernels.
If you're interested in programming references, I can list a bunch.
Here's what I have ( and recommend ):
Shell scripting:
"Learning the bash shell", OReilly and associates
"Awk and Sed", OReilly and Associates
My webpage, http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Perl:
"The Perl Cookbook" ( ORA )
"Perl 5 Interactive Course" ( Author : Orwant. Publisher: Waite Group )
Other good perl books:
"Programming Perl" and "Advanced Perl Programming", ORA
Python:
Python is a very clean looking OO scripting language.
The online docs
Qt:
Online docs
"Learning Qt", ORA
HTH,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software?
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 04:34:15 GMT
Joseph wrote:
>
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > Craig Kelley wrote:
> > >
> > > josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 17 Apr 2000, Drestin Black wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The string found in that DLL in that version of FP98 for those types of
> > > > > servers is not a backdoor.
> > > > >
> > > > > Specific enough?
> > > >
> > > > That fiasco has proven folks can have little to no confidence that MS even
> > > > understands what is engineered into their "crown jewels" codebase.
> > >
> > > ... and that it is acceptable to have a buffer overflow which, at
> > > minimum, can cause an instant DOS for IIS; all for the sake of saying
> > > that Netscape engineers are "weenies".
> > >
> > > What a joke. Those engineers should be fired for lack of tact, if
> > > nothing else.
> >
> > The article said that they were fired.
>
> I haven't seen any article saying any MS empolyee was fired in
> conjunction with the "weenie" bug.
That was my assumption from what was written in a URL that you posted:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1696137.html?tag=st.ne.1002.tgif.1003-200-1696137?st.ne.fd.gif.c
'Software code enabling the back door includes the phrase "Netscape engineers
are weenies!" The Microsoft spokeswoman made it clear the engineers' action is
a firing offense. "It's absolutely against Microsoft policy, and Microsoft is
looking into it seriously," she said.'
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Another crosses the floor
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 18 Apr 2000 12:44:30 +0800
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:10:57 GMT,
David S. Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I made the switch to Linux from windoze about four months ago. I'm a
>tradesman and work with my hands and a hard hat on all day. But at
>night, I come home and sit at the monitor and delight in the
>fascinating features in Mandrake 7.0.
>
<snip>
>Dave Hamilton.
Welcome to the wonderful world of Linux David, a great post.
I'f you like it NOW after only 4 months, you will be amazed when you look
back in another 1 1/2 years and see how far you've come.
Kind Regards
Terry
Linux full time since Aug97.
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours 38 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software?
Date: 18 Apr 2000 05:16:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > /me wonders....
>> > Rob (happily using *backdoor free* software).
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Have you personally auditted every single line of code running on your
>> computer to ascertain this ?
> Common sense says that each and every individual does not have to
> verify every line of code.
Common sense is both the friend and the enemy of security minded
individuals. One must know when to employ it and when to reject it.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Linux for a web developer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 05:21:46 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Shadow Hunter would say:
>So far I've not been very impressed with the GUI Installers at this
>point in time. I found Corel's was far better and more intuitive then
>Redhat 6.2's or Mandrake 7.0's but it was still clunky at best. I
>installed Slackware 7.0 and albeit the installer was a regular text
>type installation yet the installation was very smooth and did
>everything the way it was supposed to. I was impressed with it. :)
Of course, this should be put in appropriate perspective...
You run the GUI installer once, in order to get the system up and
running.
Once installed, you shouldn't need to use it again for a sizable
period of time, likely well beyond the "release point" where a
_substantial_ new release of your favorite distribution is available.
It's not the same as the typical need to reinstall Win9x every few
months...
--
"Not only do I strongly recommend against using PC NFS, but I'm
willing to bet you won't find anyone willing to code a free PC NFS
client. I bet even Richard Stallman would charge for a PC NFS
client." -- Steve Conley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: "OOrkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Mandrake 7.0 Vs SuSE 6.4
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 01:21:29 -0400
If you've experienced both, please compare pros & cons
Thanks
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
From: Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 22:19:00 -0700
In article <CozK4.2486$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik
Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have already done so in other threads. But here are a few
quickies.
>1) The findings of law claim that neither Microsoft or it's
OEM's believe
>that any other OS could viably be shipped by the OEM's in
the "foreseeable
>future", yet many of those same OEM's are shipping Linux in
both server and
>desktop configurations.
I think the keyword here is "viably". At the time that the trial
deals with, what percentage of OEM preloads for desktops were
non-MS operating systems? Less than one or two percent would be
my _guess_. While technically they were shipping non-MS
products, it is a arguably an insignificant number - ie the
competition is not a "viable" alternative to MS.
Servers don't matter since the FOF deal with MS Windows on
desktops, not servers.
>2) The findings of fact claim that Microsoft deliberately
embedded the
>browser into the shell for the sole reason of thwarting
Netscape, yet
>Microsoft has memos going back to 1993 talking about their
plans to
>integrate internet functionality into the OS and include an
integrated WAIS
>engine. That was almost a year before netscape even existed as
a company.
>
IIRC, plenty of other evidence showed that their primary purpose
in integrating IE was to destroy netscape and maintain
an "applications barrier to entry". Please note
that "integrating internet functionality" into the os
and "integrating IE" into the os are two different things. The
judge ruled that the latter was an illegal abuse of monopoly,
not the former.
<opinion>IE has plenty of functions that IMO are not necessary
for an html help system. MS could easily have integrated a small
browser program for help and the such and sold or given away IE
as a brogram for browsing the net. It seems to me that this is
what the judge had in mind when he listed the ways that an
integrated IE hurt consumers. If I never use the web, all that
extra code - which is always present because it is also used for
non-internet functions that I do use - is just a waste of
resources that makes my system less stable. KDE is a good
example - they file manager has basic browser capabilities but
is not meant to be most people's main web-browser. MS could
easily have done this and perhaps avoided this whole
mess.</opinion>
If they were planning internet capabilities so eary on, why were
they caught so offguard by Netscape?
All of this has no doubt already been discussed to death, but I
wonder if MS has any chance of a successful appeal.
Osugi Sakae
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DCOM versus CORBA, some history
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:50:40 -0500
Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> This post is partly a response to a current thread about Microsoft's
putative
> advantage in the enterprise. The issue centers around Microsoft's CORBA
> counterpart, DCOM, and their proposed supporting XML technology as a
stand
> in for lack of Java support. The first misconception is that Microsoft's
> DCOM has no counterpart outside Windows. That is obviously false. The
> second misconception is that DCOM is an extension of CORBA. This is also
> false. DCOM is not an example of "embrace and extend"; it's simply an
> example of incompatibility with open standards.
First, DCOM and CORBA are similar, but they are targeted at different
audiences. CORBA is a remoting architecture which, until recently, had no
component model. COM was a component model, that grew a remoting
architecture. COM was originally designed for network transparancy (though
not implemented at first) back in 1987, before CORBA existed.
DCOM is simply the network remoted version of COM, the technology that MS
has been very successful with for the last decade. If you know COM, it
doesn't take a lot to learn DCOM. Additionally, you can replace COM
components with DCOM components in the vast majority of cases and the client
won't even have to know or be recompiled.
That is why DCOM exists, not because it's competing with CORBA.
> There's some interesting history behind this. When MS was first
> promoting DCOM back in 1995, there was an obvious question why they were
flouting
> the open CORBA standard, and deliberately introducing incompatibilities
and hassles
> for their customers.
Microsoft had been promising DCOM since COM was officially launched in a
product in 1992. CORBA had very little to do with it, since it was an
extension of the existing COM architecture, not a perversion of CORBA. It
didn't introduce incompatibilities or hassles for most customers, since it
was designed to help them leverege their existing COM code, making it easier
to do distributed processing if they were already heavily invested in COM.
> At a convention, an MS representative started his presentation
> by reading the definition of "standard" from a dictionary. He then
slammed the
> dictionary shut and announced that Webster's definition of standard "was
dead." The
> "new definition," he explained, was that "de facto is de standard," and
"de facto is
> Windows." I can't think of any single incident that better sums up
Microsoft's
> combination of arrogance, contempt, and brutishness. If you accept this
kind of
> disrespect and go on supporting MS and advocating for them, I think you
need to go
> to a doctor and get your balls examined.
Presentations are marketing pieces. They're designed to catch your
attention, and it looks like this one succeeded. Taking any such marketing
propoganda at face value, no matter who the presenter is, is a rather
foolish thing to do.
> The term 'hubris' (excessive arrogance) is appropriate here.
Indeed it is. Since you are arrogantly assuming that one persons
presentation at a convention is the companies official policy.
> The ancient Greeks believed
> that hubris invokes nemesis, a form of divine retribution. In fact, it
was about the
> time of the "de facto is de standard" statement that the internet started
to explode,
> Java appeared, and the Linux threat started to really rear its head. In
2000, the very
> issue of CORBA compliance is coming back to haunt MS. In fact,
Microsoft's position is
> now considerably weakened. First, their proposed XML technology is
fairly crude, it doesn't
> even lock people into Microsoft technology, and what it accomplishes can
be easily
> duplicated by other technologies.
Uhh... you're criticizing them for doing something that's cross platform
compatible? More arrogance?
> In fact, it is just an attempt to salvage a deteriorating
> situation in which they are in danger of gradually losing touch with an
emerging, rich set
> of e-commerce and connectivity standards. Second, Microsoft is no longer
in a position
> to dictate standards. Their proposal was universally rejected out of hand
by the rest
> of the industry.
Considering that Microsoft has been one of the heaviest hitters behind the
XML standards process, I find this a rather ludicrous argument.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 06:08:22 GMT
>Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Unless I have missed something in the Win32 API, I don't think there's a way
>for a given app to have its own "registry" like this, where they can use the
>same registry API calls on their own file like I can with my own INI files in
>OS/2. Do you (or anyone else) know if this is possible in Win32? Just a
>curiosity on my part.
Yes, use functions such as WritePrivateProfileSection(),
WritePrivateProfileString(), WritePrivateProfileStruct(),
GetPrivateProfileSection(), GetPrivateProfileString().
But of course, the problem with using your own INI files is that
Commercial Backup programs don't know about them, and so can't really
provide a person with the ability to do backups of important settings
unless the user knows the names/locations of those private INI files.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Blackburn)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.hadrware,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Athlon
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:27:30 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 20:16:39 -0400, Jeff Hall wrote:
>Athlon's manufacturer, AMD, is rated a "Linux Friendly Vendor" by
>http://www.linuxhardware.net/vendors.html
>I run an Athlon 700.
lucky beggah, can I have one :)
--
Charles Blackburn -=- Remove NOSPAM to email a reply.
Summerfield Technology Limited - SuSE Linux Reseller & Birmingham L.U.G sponsor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
6:03pm up 7 days, 23:14, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:17:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jaap van Hengstum wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://cbsnews.cbs.com/now/story/0,1597,183988-412,00.shtml
>
> > Story about how Microsoft made it possible for Redmond and the U.S.
> > government to
> > spy on everybody who has a MICROSOFT OS!
>
> Try reading the facts before you post stupid FUD like that. Yes, MS reports
> a vulnerability in the dvwsrr.dll but it's a simple buffer overflow and has
> nothing to do with the so-called 'password' which isn't a password but a
Wasn't this exact sort of error cleaned out of unix in...oh...1988???
That's A DOZEN FREAKING YEARS AGO!!!!!!
> (random) value needed for the client and the server component to communicate
> correctly with eachother. This has been reported by Russ as early as
> yesterday. As much as I admire RFP's work, it seems everyone can use this dll
> if they have enough permissions (some website apparently had very lax
> permissions set). Okay, I would probably like to see MS hang as much as a lot
> of people in this newsgroup do :-) ... but it seems that the 'password'
> story came out just a little too premature...
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:21:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joe Kiser wrote more FUD:
>
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> > HORSE POOP!
> >
> > Your trying to WHITE WASH the story.
> >
> > They put in a secret BACK DOOR for the sole PURPOSE of FUDDING NETSCAPE!
>
> Yeah, I'll bet that Microsoft would put the security of corporate
> America in jeoparady by creating a secret backdoor in their software
> just because they were pissed off at Netscape. Utter bullshit.
>
> Is it safe to say, then, that every time a backdoor is found in a piece
> of UNIX software, that the coders put it there on purpose because they
> hate Microsoft?
Only if Microsoft products were running on Unix machines.
Ooops...forgot that little detail, didn't you.
> --
> -Joe Kiser
>
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> WWW: http://www.mindspring.com/~joekiser/
>
> "I walk the Earth another day
> The wicked one that comes this way
> Savior to my own, devil to some.
> Mankind falls, something wicked comes."
>
> -Iced Earth, The Coming Curse
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 06:21:47 GMT
>Gerben Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From the depths of message hell, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net wrote on 15 Apr 2000
>23:23:00 GMT:
>| > Another clueless, self-indulgent, smart-ass remark from Karel. No surprise
>| > there.
>| Yo! I've moved up from merely "smart-ass" to "smart-ass", "clueless" _and_
>| "self-indulgent"!
>I was going to include "thick-headed", "obtuse" and "smug" too, but I've
>wasted enough time on you already. So long.
Oh christ, is that pea-brained hypocrite Karel Jensens still around?
My 9 year old nephew knows more about Windows than Karel does. It's
ironic that Karel the Hypocrite first came into this newsgroup to
reply to a beef that I had with Ian Tholen and which didn't concern
Karel personally (but then Karel the Hypocrite always does run
interference for Tholen), and yet is now telling Jason not to direct
messages to Karel since Karel is allegedly is not personally involved
in some "beef".
Karel is a moron. Plain and simple. It's people like him that give
OS/2 users a bad name, but then, it's obvious that Karel is no friend
to OS/2. He hasn't done squat for OS/2, and quite the contrary, is
determined to make OS/2 users look like ignorant jerks.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:23:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> abraxas wrote:
>
> >
> > But not entirely unheard of in the industry. If you have access to any
> > portion of source code for any widely used software, have some fun by
> > looking for interesting commentary.
> >
> > Anyone can grab a couple hunks off mozilla.org and have some fun with
> > that.
> >
> > -----yttrx
>
> TRUE, but once again... With OPEN SOURCE this kind of stuff doesn't last
> 3 years and then is discovered. It's seen in something like 3 days then
> they guy is chewed out and the code is changed.
>
> With OPEN SOURCE you can't HIDE a CONSPIRACY such as this one.
>
> Therefore people are MUCH safer with LINUX as their OS or a BSD for that
> matter
> than they would be with a Microsoft product....
>
> It's an excellent case in point.
>
> And I'll guarantee there will be MORE WHITE WASHING of the facts come Monday,
> but people will still ask the SAME QUESTIONS I've put to you...
>
> How's a BIG OLD GROWN up COMPANY LIKE MICROSOFT managing to let this
> stuff get into the publics machines and newspapers....
Simnple: Bill Gates believes that Microsoft shall not be constrained by
rules.
This is why every time they go to court...they LOSE.
Just like IBM in the 60's and 70's.
Illegal as all get out.
>
> This is some serious crap.
>
> Charlie
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:23:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dirk Gently wrote:
>
> With open sorce, you CAN hide a consperacy. It just means you have too have
> a lot more people in on it, and is therefore less likely to suceed.
The code also has to be WAYYYYYYYY more subtle to pass inspection
by numerous, and UNKNOWN readers.
>
> --
> Jeff Lacy
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Linux Rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > abraxas wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > But not entirely unheard of in the industry. If you have access to any
> > > portion of source code for any widely used software, have some fun by
> > > looking for interesting commentary.
> > >
> > > Anyone can grab a couple hunks off mozilla.org and have some fun with
> > > that.
> > >
> > > -----yttrx
> >
> > TRUE, but once again... With OPEN SOURCE this kind of stuff doesn't last
> > 3 years and then is discovered. It's seen in something like 3 days then
> > they guy is chewed out and the code is changed.
> >
> > With OPEN SOURCE you can't HIDE a CONSPIRACY such as this one.
> >
> > Therefore people are MUCH safer with LINUX as their OS or a BSD for that
> > matter
> > than they would be with a Microsoft product....
> >
> > It's an excellent case in point.
> >
> > And I'll guarantee there will be MORE WHITE WASHING of the facts come
> Monday,
> > but people will still ask the SAME QUESTIONS I've put to you...
> >
> > How's a BIG OLD GROWN up COMPANY LIKE MICROSOFT managing to let this
> > stuff get into the publics machines and newspapers....
> >
> > This is some serious crap.
> >
> > Charlie
> >
> >
> >
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:24:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8deeb7$tdp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <HwoK4.1901$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Dirk Gently" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > With open sorce, you CAN hide a consperacy. It just means you have
> > too have
> > > a lot more people in on it, and is therefore less likely to suceed.
> >
> > That would be the lousiest conspiracy _ever_; everyone who wants to know
> > about it can just read some lines of code - way to hide somthing, dude!
>
> It's quite easy to "hide in plain sight". For instance, self-modifying code
> could be implanted into the system which would be very difficult for someone
> to notice in a casual perusal.
"Self-modifying code" jumps out at you.
Remember, "text" and "data" spaces are seperated in Unix.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
