Linux-Advocacy Digest #234, Volume #26 Tue, 25 Apr 00 11:14:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: MS caught breaking web sites ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (Ray)
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...) (mlw)
Something to "advocate" about.. ("Marshall F.")
Why Linux should be pronounced with a long I (Carl Banks)
Re: Adobe FrameMaker available on Linux (Doug Mast)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites (Cary O'Brien)
Re: Why Linux should be pronounced with a long I ("Mike")
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. ("Brian D. Smith")
5 Common Mistakes 52645523 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: which OS is best? (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: 23 Apr 2000 22:06:56 -0000
In comp.os.linux.security The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Linux makes a good server OS, but the desktop convenience isn't
> quite there yet. (To be fair, I haven't evaluated KDE and Gnome
> recently; I'm an old Unix-head and use fvwm (not fvwm2-95) as a
> window manager, :-) and I'm not up on BeOS -- which sounds like the
> hottest thing since the Amiga, from a multimedia standpoint.)
my girlfriend has, unlike me, a dual OS setup and she actually uses the
linux desktop with the 'old' KDE 1.2.x the most.
If set up properly, it _can_ be done. also, the children of her sister (9
and 7 iirc) only use linux under kde here. ok, more for the fun but they
_are_ using it.
Roeland
--
Grobbebol's Home | Don't give in to spammers. -o)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bengel | Use your real e-mail address /\
Linux 2.2.14 SMP 466MHz / 256 MB | on Usenet. _\_v
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: 23 Apr 2000 17:00:46 -0500
In article <8dvksi$27c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>> >
>> >Actually the only thing i miss in Linux is a good Exchange/IMAP client..
>> >there is tkRat but it aint it.
>>
>> Netscape Communicator/messenger is tolerable as an IMAP client once
>> you convince it not to consider all the files under your home
>> directory as mailfolders.
>
>Ohh.. its not tolerable... its silly to download your folders and messages
>when connected to a IMAP enabled server (Micors¨1 Exchange).. that really
>smashes the idea with IMAP.
I usually read my mail so it has to be downloaded anyway, but I thought
it was just getting headers and went back for the messages - I'm sure
it does that for attachments.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray)
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:13:46 GMT
On 22 Apr 2000 04:29:12 -0700, test@myhome <test@myhome> wrote:
>lets talk a little about the broken way of installing software on linux.
>
>it is most certinaly is a broken system now.
>
>a simple example. I wanted to install some rpm package
>to try some application. ok, i do
>
> rpm -Uhv foo.rpm
>
>it tells me it needs 5 others packages that are missing or not
>to the right level.
Red Hat <> Linux. On my Debian system, to install Mutt, I just type
"apt-get install mutt". It fetches and installs any depends. automatically.
--
Ray
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 17:22:13 -0500
On 23 Apr 2000 15:16:36 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>>>But there is nothing easier or more consistant that a text
>>>editor and no reason to learn a different interface for
>>>every little task.
>>
>>People by the millions have proven that line of thinking to be in the
>>minority.
>
>Of course. Microsoft and Apple spent a lot of money convincing
>them that text must be represented as arbitrary graphic shapes
>and thus editting text must be complicated instead of having
>the simplicity of typewriter characters.
Yes. And they're right.
>>I can't say it's wrong, but I can say that most people
>>nowadays use the GUI, and I think the vast, vast majority of them
>>prefer that to the CLI. Linux serves up both fairly well, so *I* like
>>it, but I think most prefer a GUI.
>
>Things that are controlled by config files can be wrapped by
>a GUI to give you the choice much easier than the opposite.
Sometimes. I don't think linuxconf is a particularly good example of
that.
>>I think the Mac method (hide
>>everything) goes too far, and I think the Linux method (show
>>everything) goes too far - I think Windows (NT/2k) is good middle
>>ground for most people.
>
>It's OK the first time you do something, but after you realize
>that the 10th time you are repeating 100 steps and doing only
>one different, how do you automate that other 99?
NT has CLI commands also.
>>...which makes setup all the more frustrating with NFS. You've got to
>>trust the machine in question that has NFS-client permissions, else
>>you open up an entire range of security problems. Without NIS, NFS
>>is, IMHO, a disaster. I'm sure there's much more to it that I haven't
>>seen or used yet, but it seems that getting the GID/UID from the
>>*client* system and applying it to *server* side shares is outrageous
>>- a security flaw that's easily exploitable.
>
>Conceptually it is the same as trust relations between PDCs. Giving
Except that how many PDCs do you have? 5 in an organization? 10?
50? It doesn't matter - represented as a percentage of machines, it
MIGHT be .3% or so (one PDC for every 3000 machines, say). For Linux,
*EVERY* Linux box (100%) that is set up with NFS is granted just as
much trust as you are granting that administrator that runs the NT
PDC. That's a problem.
>the root password to someone on a client system that you don't
>trust is the same as giving the administrator password to a
>trusted domain to that person. One model isn't any more
>outrageous than the other.
Rootsquash is on by default in Mandrake and RH6.2; I'd think it would
be on in other flavors too. But the problem isn't just with root -
users can have different GIDs and UIDs on different systems; that's
bad.
>>>Keep in mind that the old method was just fine with Microsoft
>>>until easily configured Samba servers became popular.
>>
>>Do you think that the only reason they changed it?
>
>Yes, knowing that the encrypted token is just as usable for
>an attack as the plaintext, I see no other reason for it
>(and Microsoft certainly knew that as well) and the timing
>was precisely right.
>
>>>Is it possible to export the CLI commands from a working system in
>>>a form usable to configure a subset of a similar system?
>>
>>I don't understand the question. NT's files are the same throughout
>>NT's installations, which many find -very- nice (they can guarantee XX
>>file will be there and will work).
>
>If the service in question can be controlled entirely by documented
>files, this issue is irrelevant since you can cut and paste
>the lines in question directly. Among CLI's the only one I've
>seen get this right is Cisco, where you can telnet in one
>window to a box configured correctly and type 'show running'
>and get exactly the lines you need to type in to configure
>the setup by pasting to another window. For example you might
>want to set all your time servers the same some lines like:
>ntp time server nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn
>you can just paste them in from the working copy.
1. Get a time client/server for NT (I think 2k has one, but I haven't
messed with it)
2. Make a script to automate it.
What's the problem? Better, what's the difference?
>>>You have to repeat all the same steps with all the
>>>same places to make mistakes on each machine. Unless the CLI works
>>>like Cisco's where a 'show running' command emits exactly the
>>>commands needed to reproduce the configuration, having a CLI doesn't
>>>help although it might give you a way to script the setup. For some
>>>reason Cisco seems to be the only company that understands that
>>>you often want to cut and paste between windows connected to two
>>>different boxes.
>>
>>What do you do and what can't you do in NT/2k?
>
>I manage an assortment of boxes and find it much more difficult
>to clone an existing system with services under NT/2K. To build
>a copy of a Linux web server with a bunch of vhosts, for example, I
>can copy an entire machine and then edit a few files if the
>ip addresses are going to be different. On the NT/2K boxes
>I have to repeat the install and then manually repeat the entire
>server setup. I always want VNC installed and running as a
Use GHOST to copy the server/install the server, then edit to suit.
Also, NT comes with a fairly powerful scriptable setup that you can
use to completely automate the installation (UAFs - unattended answer
files - look 'em up in the MSKB), and from there you can put things in
/administrator/startup and install, say, user-level applications for
NT deployments.
>service so that's another several steps. I can't get
>replication to run automatically without a domain controller
>(why?) so I install the port of rsync with the cygwin dll
>in another several steps. Maybe there really are easy
>ways to do these things but if so, they are not as obvious as
>copying files.
Replication has several well known bugs; without SP3 it's useless.
Install the latest SP (6a) and try it again.
While I no longer have 2 Win2k boxes here (Linux is happily running on
2/3rds of my machines now) I see no reason for replication to require
a domain controller. To import requires NTW, and to export or import
requires NTS. Win2k may have changed that a bit, but that's all
that's required in NT4.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Date: 23 Apr 2000 14:26:17 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig says...
>
>A complete SUSE install doesn't give you GNOME and gtk?
>
>Sad.
>
As others have said, Suse names packages differently.
So, the gnome packages are there, installed, but the RPM
package is looking for them using redhat or some other
naming convention.
Mitch.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 17:24:00 -0500
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 16:45:50 -0400, Gary Connors
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>in article
>[EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 4/21/00 11:33 AM:
>
>> Having just come through a few Linux installs (notably LinuxPPC,
>> Mandrake 7, and most recently RedHat 6.2) I'd still have to disagree
>> here - NT (well, the current incarnation, Win2000) is easier. Face it
>> - going through a bunch of MAN pages to do common things just isn't
>> fun.
>>
>
>DC, Im a Mac user and I installed Mandrake 7 with absolutely no problem. It
So? Do I suggest all users will have problems? Have you done
everything I've done - install NFS on client and server, install a NIS
server and NIS client, install Samba? *I* am familiar with it, but I
can't imagine a non-computer-person trudging through this mess.
>took about a half an hour for the whole install, I was at the computer for
>at most 5 minutes of it. Easily set up PPP. Installing Mandrake is now
>breeze. Using it is a whole other issue. I set it up for a friend who was
>afraid of installing Linux. After he saw what I did, he felt foolish. I
>dont see the complaint. Maybe Win2000 is easier to set up cause it doesnt
>require you to format your haddrive and parition it. Frankly, I feel better
>having a seperate swap partition and a seperate parition for the OS.
Immaterial nitpick.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 17:26:10 -0500
On 23 Apr 2000 15:47:04 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>>>The simpleminded way to make UID/GID's the same is to copy one password
>>>and group file over to the other machines. NIS becomes better at
>>>some number of machines.
>>
>>And how do you sync them once things start changing again?
>
>Rdist would be the typical way, but if they don't change often
>you could just rcp/rsync when you add someone.
Tell me about both, please.
>>So much for the contention (not yours) that no reading is
>>required...The /etc/exports setup alone would stump many people.
>>
>>>how do I get a disparate group of users in a Win2k domain access
>>>to things in a different NT domain?
>>
>>NT domain must trust Win2k domain; in SHARING for the object to be
>>shared in NT domain, select Win2k domain, and add the users. This
>>will be completely transparent to the users; there will simply be
>>another resource they can access, with no password prompt or other
>>things to learn. On the client side, *no* work is required once the
>>users have joined their domain (which should happen before the users
>>ever get their machines.)
>
>Can a beginner be expected to make this work without reading
>anything?
No, but I don't suggest that, do I? I suggest that Win9x's sharing
setup is far easier than similar setups in Unix/Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 17:33:30 -0500
On 23 Apr 2000 15:07:02 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Except for one thing - Win98's sharing is far, far easier.
>
>Ever try accessing shares on two different servers with two different
>account names?
>Easy is not the word I'd choose; Impossible comes to mind though.
Tell me how it's impossible - describe the networking method used and
why it's impossible.
>> >>Run exportfs -r because linuxconf doesn't automatically do it for you. Again, no
>> >>newbie would know this without extensive man page reading.
>> >
>> >If the exports file is correct before starting nfs, you don't need
>> >to do this.
>>
>> Granted.
>
>And you can click all this away with linuxconf, of course.
We've already mentioned that.
>> Why all of these complicated steps just to get filesharing going?
>> Face it - this is *complicated* - you have to know *exactly* where to
>> go and *exactly* what to do, and there are no prompts or similar along
>> the way to help you along.
>
>Buy "Running Linux" by O'Rielly.
Already have Shah's Linux Admin book; it's been very helpful.
>I very much doubt my grandmother would just happen across Windows
>networking code... Oh, and Windows browsing across subnets? Let's
I don't think so either. MS doesn't share their code.
>talk about ridiculous now. Face it, Windows is hard to use other than
>the default setup: A bunch of machines on the same segment in the
>same workgroup. Anything else is neigh on impossible to figure out
>wihtout intimate knowledge of protocol-level designs in NetBEUI.
Anything with a subnet is probably big enough to use DHCP, and the
problem is immediately resolved (aka WINS). NetBEUI configuration
doesn't need to enter the picture. And given that without DHCP a
Linux box is stuck with straight IP addresses, whereas in Windows I
get a (broadcast) ability to automatically find other machines (in the
same subnet) ... well, I think we both know Windows is easier for a
novice.
>> >The simpleminded way to make UID/GID's the same is to copy one password
>> >and group file over to the other machines. NIS becomes better at
>> >some number of machines.
>>
>> And how do you sync them once things start changing again? You can't
>> guarantee, sans NIS, that any two machines will have the same logins,
>> passwords, etc. That's minor, though, for just a few machines, and
>> doesn't interest me much. The real problem is GUI/UID syncronization.
>
>NIS, Kerberos (gee, I wonder who else uses that....), LDAP, NT-DOM.
>You have your choice.
I said sans NIS. Are you reading the comments (not just mine, but
others' comments as well) prior to replying here?
Anyhow, thanks for the info - how does, say, LDAP security work?
>Windows is more difficult in this arena as well; replicating SAM
>databases and the network registry? Hmmm.
SAM database replication among the PDC and BDCs is no big deal; it can
be set (or done) at will.
Why would I replicate the "network" registry?
>> So much for the contention (not yours) that no reading is
>> required...The /etc/exports setup alone would stump many people.
>
>Enter linuxconf. Enter an allowed host and a path and you're done.
Yeah - as if anyone would just happen upon that. You need to
configure the server, too. And make a directory where you want the
share to go. It's far more complicated than you make it out to be.
> [snip]
>
>About your question on allowing the root user access to login directly
>using telnet; the simple answer is: don't. It's a very very bad idea.
Why? Anyone can SU to root anyway. It's a private network, so I
don't worry about sniffing, so... why not?
>If you really want to, then erase the pam_securetty.so line from
>/etc/pam.d/login (or change it from "required" to "optional").
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...)
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 18:35:34 -0400
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> : >
> : > I think it's silly that some people use an operating system just to "get
> : > away from Microsoft" or other such nonsense. Use of an operating system
> : > should be dictated by one's tasks, tastes, and lifestyle, and not the
> : > other way around. Any other reasoning beyond that is simply mental
> : > illness, AFAIC.
>
> : Actually I have to disgree, but not for the reasons you may want to
> : hear. Windows is unreliable. Avoiding Microsoft to avoid unreliable
> : software is a reasonable position.
>
> : There are other things too. If people think that something is "wrong"
> : many times people boycott products and companies in an effort to change
> : the corporate behavior. This is also a reasonable position.
>
> : Microsoft has been ruled a monopoly, has been proven to use its monopoly
> : position to hurt competition. It is a perfectly reasonable and rational
> : position to avoid MS for that sort of behavior in an attempt to effect
> : change.
>
> Honestly, I find it very odd that a member of a community that purports to
> advocate "free thinking" and such follows the government with such fervor.
>
> Am I the only one who thinks this is a tad hypocritical?
I do not follow the government with "fervor." I have worked in the
industry and seen the damage that MS does to companies. I have
personally been exposed to various practices. I think the government, in
this case, is absolutely 100% right.
--
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: "Marshall F." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Something to "advocate" about..
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 18:50:49 -0400
Unless I am seriously mistaken (and I hope I am not), wouldn't a prime
reason to advocate GNU/Linux these days be the fact that the default privacy
(laff) settings for Microsoft Windows places it's users in peril for any
that use the internet?.
I am not talking about general security issues, of which I know there are
many, but more importantly (to my topic) the ever increasing problem of
internet advertisers and data collecters that are profiling anyone they can
slip a cookie, trojan, 1 by 1 pixel
(http://www.tiac.net/users/smiths/privacy/wbfaq.htm), god, err techie's know
where or how it ends.
Recently I even found that there is hidden information in the "Favorites"
URL structure that is not easy to get at and leaves questions as to why it
is really there (at least for me it does).
Here is an example of what I mean, I just checked a link I saved a few days
ago as the site was interesting, the topic was worlds tallest buildings and
structures.
[example]
[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.xs4all.nl/~hnetten/index.html
[DOC#10]
BASEURL=http://ads.clickagents.com/cgibin/banner.ca?hansnetten.50.iframe&htt
p://www.xs4all.nl/~hnetten/index.html
ORIGURL=http://ads.clickagents.com/cgibin/banner.ca?hansnetten.50.iframe&htt
p://www.xs4all.nl/~hnetten/index.html
[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.xs4all.nl/~hnetten/index.html
Modified=E0B6DDDD3AA7BF01F1
[/example]
So, why does the clickagents.com line need to buryed in the URL?, why is it
not enough that the next time I go to the site I am simply presented with
the sites contents as they stand at that time? and most importantly, why is
it that Microsoft is enabling this *feature*?. Since I was not born
yesterday, I assume that bad business is at hand.
The only possible way to get this data in Windows is to right click on the
URL file and choose "Send To" notepad, this is not a option by default as
you have to add the shortcut to notepad in the "SendTo" folder. A person can
not simply get this info by choosing the "properties" of the URL file to
read.
With that being said, please don't get too caught up in my example, there
are larger fish to fry here.
My biggest gripe with Windows these days is the fact that unscrupled
publishers are allowing adware/spyware to be bundled into thier products
and to add insult to injury (in many cases, real monetary damage is done)
they don't even provide a warning that such adware is bundled into the
product, it is simply labeled Freeware, Trialware, Demoware.
Anyone here, hear about the Aureate mess?, thier product left the (including
my own) I.E. browser unstable and slow (TIME = MONEY). If your interested
you can read more about it here, http://grc.com/optout.htm .
So, how about it, in what ways does GNU/Linux offer more privacy out of the
gate compared to Microsoft Windows latest incarnations?. I would like to
know what regular users (with an eye toward privacy) of GNU/Linux have to
say (even better if you use both O/S's for the sake of objectivity).
Now lest anyone think that I am a paranoid nut, I would like to say that I
really just don't like being marketed to, or bundled into a demographic or
tracked in any fashion and I certainly don't like the idea of having ad's
popup in my browser, placed there by someone who thinks they know what I
want. I am not bothering anyone and I don't want to be bothered, it is as
simple as that.
Here is one last link to think about..
http://www.naviant.com/Web/etarget.htm
--
Marshall F.
------------------------------
From: Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why Linux should be pronounced with a long I
Date: 23 Apr 2000 23:08:08 GMT
So it doesn't have the same vowel sound as in the first syllable of
"Windows." It's bad enough they have to share a consonant.
--
___\___ ____\___
\ / .\ \ / .\
|>< Carl < |>< Banks <
/ \_____)_/ / \______)_/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Mast)
Subject: Re: Adobe FrameMaker available on Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:39:10 GMT
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 08:30:07 +1000, Andy Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8dsbgc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, pete@x wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David says...
> >
> >>From what I can see there are only a
> >>couple of things that one cannot do on linux that one might want to do.
> >>Create PDF's is one
> >
> >all these years I've been creating pdf's on linux with
> >simple commands must have been a dream.
> >
> >ps2pfd
> >pdflatex
Yup. And there's more: Adobe Acrobat Distiller (version 3 for Windoze)
works perfectly under Wine on linux. I was even able to *install*
Distiller using Wine, which was a pleasant surprise to me.
Doug.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cary O'Brien)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: 23 Apr 2000 19:47:14 -0400
In article <8dvs60$1np$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.security The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> Linux makes a good server OS, but the desktop convenience isn't
>> quite there yet. (To be fair, I haven't evaluated KDE and Gnome
>> recently; I'm an old Unix-head and use fvwm (not fvwm2-95) as a
>> window manager, :-) and I'm not up on BeOS -- which sounds like the
>> hottest thing since the Amiga, from a multimedia standpoint.)
>
>my girlfriend has, unlike me, a dual OS setup and she actually uses the
>linux desktop with the 'old' KDE 1.2.x the most.
>
>If set up properly, it _can_ be done. also, the children of her sister (9
>and 7 iirc) only use linux under kde here. ok, more for the fun but they
>_are_ using it.
>
Linux is *GREAT* for families with small children. My 6 and 9 year
olds have no trouble at all typing their name and password into the
xdm login box. And once they are logged in, they can only mess
themselves up. I put netscape, applixware, xpaint, and logo into the
root menu and they are good to go. Diald handles the internet access.
And if they abuse the privilege, zap goes the password.
Plus I am comfortable with the kids doing whatever they want with the
same machine I do real live paying work on. Plus I can use cron to
email stock quotes to my cell phone.
-- c
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux should be pronounced with a long I
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:50:48 GMT
"Carl Banks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8dvvoo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> So it doesn't have the same vowel sound as in the first syllable of
> "Windows." It's bad enough they have to share a consonant.
Doesn't Linus pronounce it Leenuucks?
Maybe it should be Leenuck, so it doesn't even share an 's'?
-- But then people would switch to Windows, because it's plural. --
------------------------------
From: "Brian D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 00:02:08 GMT
73%? I don't think so...
IDC reports NT market share for 1999 at 38%, with linux catching up fast
at 25%. See the full story at
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1546430.html?tag=st.ne.1002.bgif?st.ne.fd.gif.j
-Brian Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "boat_goat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > How big do you think the installed base for NT4 actually is?
>
> According to Microsoft's own statistics, they own 73% of the server
> market with cumulative sales in the tens of billions. If you don't want
> to do the math, you can order any of several reports from IDC that
> include the annual unit volume figures. Sales of a million units
> (licenses) is diminutive even by Microsoft's own standards.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 5 Common Mistakes 52645523
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 16:37:59 -0800
1. Don't Gamble when tired.
2. Don't Gamble when hungry.
3. Don't Gamble when distracted.
4. Don't Gamble with Money you need.
5. Once won, the money is yours. You are not playing on free money.
6. Check out this site!
http://www.go2jackpots.com/3355
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 00:09:59 GMT
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 10:35:47 -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 08:03:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>>>For an office setup, sure, with NIS it isn't that bad once you've done
>>>it a few times, but for one-offs, *I* wouldn't want to be the one to set
>>>up someone else's filesharing over the phone.
>>
>>With Linux, I could log into his system over the network, and configure it
>>right speedily.
>
>And what if he calls you up remotely, has no network connection, or
>doesn't know how to grant rights to you?
What if he's blind and doesn't speak english?
(if he doesn't have a network connection, what good does sharing files
do?)
The nice thing about text based configs, is that you can step someone through
it vet easily, it's easy to say type xyz, rather than saying click on the icon
that looks like a mutated potatoe, and drag it to the one that looks like a
squashed pumpkin...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
