Linux-Advocacy Digest #302, Volume #26 Fri, 28 Apr 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Beer Tosser a Sabre Fan? Nope. (Charles Philip Chan)
Re: So what is wrong with X? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition! ("Mike Palmer")
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Christopher Browne)
Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat (Shell)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites ("anon")
Re: Beer Tosser a Sabre Fan? Nope. (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux KILLED MY SYSEM!!! IT SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ("Robert L.")
Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Beer Tosser a Sabre Fan? Nope.
From: Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 28 Apr 2000 21:44:01 +0500
>>>>> "Matthias" == Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IMHO, it should be possible to run a package installer without
> human intervention so it can just run (all night if
> necessary). The Right Thing to do would be to have RPM batch up
> the requests to the admin somehow and let them process them
> whenever they want. This could be done via e-mail.
SuSE does this in their distribution for important messages about
packages in the post installation script of the RPM's. I especially
like it after upgrading a package whose config file format have
changed.
Charles
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: So what is wrong with X?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 02:10:06 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Cary O'Brien would say:
>In article <8ecbr9$8o1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>> If both machines had to equally run the binary, there would be no
>>>> way for me to run the program since my Linux machine can't run the
>>>> Sun binary program. No Thanks.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the local GUI could run in Java, or tcl, or something
>>> equaly portable. It doesn't need to be particularly powerful.
>>
>>Plus, if you use a higher-level language you can significantly reduce
>>the amount of network traffic required to support the session. (This
>>is one of the main complaints levelled at X, and it is a largely fair
>>one too. Provided you are willing to mandate a powerful display
>>engine. Given the modern costs of processing and graphics power, this
>>is not a bad tactic!) Distributing applications across several
>>machines is definitely the in-thing in modern computing. Push those
>>database accesses over to the business-rule server. Run those CFD
>>analyses on the supercomputer. Put the heavy duty 3D visualisation
>>into the Cave...
>>
>>Now, the production of a fully functional remoteable Tk GUI is an
>>interesting topic. Wish I had the time to persue it...
>>
>
>Back, what, 15 years ago (gaak!) Sun pushed something called NEWS,
>Network Extensible Windowing System. My understanding that it was
>kind of distributed display postscript. You could up- (down-? over-?)
>load bits of display postscript to the machine with the display to
>speed things up. Similar to what you are talking about. Eventually
>Sun knuckled under and went with X.
>
>Nothing new under the sun, eh?
>
>[Hope I've got the details sorta right]
More or less.
The name of the "display substrate" was, indeed, Display Postscript.
NeXT wound up building a system based on DPS, which is where NeXTStep and
OPENSTEP came from. The GnuStep project <http://www.gnustep.org/> is
in fact working on a free version of this.
There were two _really big_ problems with Sun NeWS:
a) It was a proprietary system from Sun that was dependent on a proprietary
technology (DPS) from Adobe.
b) All the other UNIX vendors were scared of Sun at the time because it
looked like Sun was going to, along with AT&T, "corner" the UNIX market,
trying to lock everyone else out.
X was what they were able to agree on instead.
The situation wasn't the first situation that displayed that Licensing
Is Really Important. It won't be the last.
Note, if you look at GTK and Qt and Tk and GnuStep, the likely
most-notable GUI environments on Linux, that while they all use X, _none_
are forcibly tied to X the way that Motif is. Indeed, all of them _do_
run atop other rendering substrates than X.
The most _massive_ weakness of X is, at this point, that of font rendering.
Which is being _actively_ worked on.
The #2 problem is probably the lack of a WYSIWYG printing facility. Which
the X11R6.1 XPRINT facility started to deal with. And GnuStep efforts
are liable to be helpful, in providing a "libre" implementation of Display
Postscript.
It is _theoretically possible_ that GGI+Mesa+DPS might someday supplant X;
if there was _no_ development of "new stuff" going on with X, as was largely
true from the days of the X Consortium until the "eye-opening" of the TOG
X11R6.4 license, then GGI might have the opening to catch up.
In contrast, a lot of active work is now going into X. The NAS service,
essentially lost when X went to TOG, is now being actively worked on.
There are now efforts on the font front. OpenGL integration, via Mesa.
And when a $79 graphics card has more RAM on it these days than there
were on whole _servers_ back when X was created, the notion that X need
be considered bloated and slow is becoming increasingly silly.
--
"I've discovered that P=NP, but the proof is too long to fit within
the confines of this signature..."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: "Mike Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition!
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 19:11:33 -0700
Reply-To: "Mike Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Mark Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:EggO4.1921$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Are you sure this is a good thing for Linux? So far, Microsoft has been
> neglecting Linux because it conflicts with their OS strategy. That has
> provided a niche for other ISVs to survive (StarOffice, Corel, Applix).
If
> Office shows up in the Linux domain, why do you imagine that the other
> office suites would do any better competing against Office under Linux
than
> under Windows?
>
> To take it a step further, if the Microsoft Windows company (as opposed to
> the MS Office company) perceived a threat to the Win32 API in the porting
of
> Office to Linux, might they not try to keep that from happening by
> developing their own version of WINE that uses the real Windows code
> (perhaps called WDE--Windows Desktop Environment) for x86 Linux?
>
> You want to run Office (or other Win32 apps) on Linux? Fine, but you
gotta
> buy yourself a copy of WDE which--surprise!--has the same OEM pricing as
> Windows 9.x.
Office runs on the Mac right now, and I don't hear about requiring a Windows
API to do it. It's hard to imagine that this would be the case.
I think Linux has most of the things necessary to support Office, but they
aren't very well integrated right now. Corba is finally here in a usable
form, but KDE and Gnome each provide a different API to get to it. The folks
at Gnome are working on a printing API which is different from the printing
API that KDE has or is working on. Help systems, clipboards, and so on: all
different. In short, there are multiple API's that you can write
applications for in Linux, but none of them are complete in the sense that
Windows, Mac, and BeOS are - at least, not yet - and when they are, they
will each present a different API to the developer. It seems to be pretty
controversial to say this here, but this isn't good. To achieve seamless
operation between disparate applications, the underlying infrastructure
interface has to be common to everybody. KDE can't use a different
clipboard. Gnome can't use a different Corba interface.
Although many folks here like the choice of multiple desktops, it's a mess
from a developer's point of view: to take advantage of the API, you pretty
much have to choose one and forget about the others. Right now, the office
suites on Linux run at a lower level (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think
they all run on X, not on anything higher). This lets them run under KDE or
Gnome, but doesn't let them take advantage of things like Corba, that X
doesn't offer. I haven't tried it, but I'll bet that I still can't paste an
Applix spreadsheet into a Star document as a Corba object...
It seems to me that the impact of the MS Office company entering the Linux
market would be to effectively enforce the choice of a single desktop/API.
Secondarily, they would have the strength, by sheer force of market power,
to drive the API development in the direction they wanted it to go. Even in
open source, they could make the changes they wanted, then release them. The
market force behind their applications would guarantee that their version
became the standard. This probably won't have the negative impact many
people might expect: a complete API is needed, but Microsoft's development
of Office for the Mac hasn't meant that the Mac API is now a Microsoft API.
What it would mean is that alternative APIs would find almost no acceptance,
once Microsoft chose one. One could argue that this is inevitable, with or
without Microsoft, but the process by which the choice is made would be
different.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 02:13:57 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jimmy Navarro would say:
>Christopher Browne wrote:
>> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when bytes256 would say:
>> >Am I the only one here who thinks that X Windows is crap?
>> >X Windows is extremely archaic, ridiculously bloated,
>> >way too slow, and extremely hard to install.
>> >
>> >Let's get rid of it completely.
>>
>> Feel free.
>>
>> What were you planning to run distributed graphical applications on
>> top of, as a replacement for X?
>
>I guess he may need to try the iMac...
And this is an answer how?
The iMac runs a graphical system that is controlled voraciously by Apple.
It is _not_ a distributable system, whether we speak of MacOS8, MacOS9,
or the (now NXHost-less, what with Adobe unwilling to license DPS) OS-X.
--
Rules of the Evil Overlord #84. "No matter how many shorts we have in
the system, my guards will be instructed to treat every surveillance
camera malfunction as a full-scale emergency."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shell)
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 02:19:14 GMT
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Actually, it's based on one of the articles I'd read 10 years
>ago, out of the 200-400 pages per day that I have read for the
>last 10 years, and since I don't have a search engine that goes
>back to pre-1994, I would have to look it up in a library microfiche
>file. My billing rate is $280/hour, and if you really want to pay
>that price, I could probably find it in the New York Library, perhaps
>in a week or two.
Wow there is no way I would pay $280/hour for the quality of the knowledge
R.E. Ballard brings to the scene.
I could get the same quality of knowledge by asking the bag clerk at the
local grocery store next time I'm in there... and I only have to tip him a
$1.
--
Steve Sheldon email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BSCS/MCSE url: http://www.sheldon.visi.com
BEEF! - Cause the west wasn't won on salad.
------------------------------
From: "anon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 02:16:57 GMT
At least NTFS doesnt chew large holes in files when it re-starts after a
crash ......... ho hum :-)
Jon Tollerton wrote in message ...
>I do have two NT machines that do take about five minutes to boot up, but
>the things have 512 MB of Ram and a 104 GB fibre channel SCSI RAID array.
>It takes a long time to initialize that BEFORE it gets to NTLDR.
>
>"Sean LeBlanc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Couldn't agree more. NT 4.0 workstation is a desktop (or tower :) )
>> OS by most people's definition. I've been using NT workstation
>> at jobs I've had since 1995. I've been using it at home since
>> 1996. It has never (under ordinary circumstances)
>> taken me five minutes to boot or shutdown,
>> and I have 3 SCSI components in my system. Got news for you:
>> a similarly loaded setup of RedHat 6.1 and NT 4.0 workstation
>> take roughly the same time to load; I've timed them some time
>> ago just out of curiousity...both under a minute, including
>> time from power on to a logon screen.
>> To be fair, yes, RedHat has many more services out of the
>> box than NT has, and I was running the "graphical boot" in
>> RedHat.
>>
>> I'd time it again to get exact seconds, but my current install
>> would be unfair - Linux is on IDE right now, and WinNT resides
>> on SCSI.
>>
>> I'm not sure why the original claim was even made, it makes
>> no sense to me.
>>
>> I've seen NT have problems with weird states and getting
>> it to shutdown gracefully may be impossible (yesterday I
>> saw it "lose" connection to domain, apparently, and not
>> allow login, even though I know domain admin password,
>> and it supposedly caches that data - odd; had to hard
>> re-boot, ie, reset button) or lengthy, but
>> under normal conditions, both the workstation and server
>> of NT 4.0 start up and shut down WAY under 5 minutes.
>>
>> M$ products clearly have issues, and I'm not contesting
>> that, but let's get serious: NT 4.0 is a desktop OS, and
>> there is no doubt about that. Now, if someone were to say
>> NT 4.0 server is not a server OS, that might be debatable.
>> Can't speak for Win2K, haven't seen it used extensively.
>>
>> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > "Rasputin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Scott Zielinski wrote:
>> > > > > If its a "NT replacement" is not on the desktop. In the real
>world,
>> > NT is
>> > > > > not a desktop OS.
>> > > > That's absolutly, completely, untrue. Ever hear of "NT
Workstation?"
>If
>> > > > that isn't a desktop OS....
>> > >
>> > > A 'desktop OS' boots in less than 5 minutes. A 'desktop OS' takes
less
>> > > than 5 minutes to shut down. Nuff said.
>> >
>> > Thus easily allowing NT to be a "desktop OS".
>> >
>> > If you've got an NT *Workstation* install that's taking that long to
>boot
>> > and shut down, you have serious problems.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Beer Tosser a Sabre Fan? Nope.
Date: 28 Apr 2000 21:17:08 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Matthias" == Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > IMHO, it should be possible to run a package installer without
> > human intervention so it can just run (all night if
> > necessary). The Right Thing to do would be to have RPM batch up
> > the requests to the admin somehow and let them process them
> > whenever they want. This could be done via e-mail.
>
>SuSE does this in their distribution for important messages about
>packages in the post installation script of the RPM's. I especially
>like it after upgrading a package whose config file format have
>changed.
>
I might have agreed back in the days of hand-cranked computers.
Now that a whole install takes 15 minutes or so, I'd rather make
choices about config files before my system is broken instead of
notices after the fact. As I understand it, the pre/post install
scripts can't assume that stdin is connected to the installing
terminal, so this is impossible.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 21:31:08 -0500
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 01:11:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
wrote:
>>>>>So can someone explain why it is I have to open a pdf file in windows in
>>>>>order to print it? I mean, under linux, dragging the file to the printer
>>>>>icon, or typing lpr file.pdf prints it just fine. Why does windows feel
>>>>>it is neccessary to open it up with adobe acrobat first? It takes a long
>>>>>time compared to simply dragging it to the printer icon in KDE. I mean,
>>>>>if I drag it to the printer icon in windows, windows asks me for a file
>>>>>association, I don't want to open it, just print it.
>>>>
>>>>Why would it ask for a file association? Acrobat automatically
>>>>registers itself at installation. It sounds like you didn't install
>>>>Acrobat Reader - you only copied the installation from another
>>>>machine, without adding the correct entries in the registry (which
>>>>normally happens for you at installation time). When I drag a PDF
>>>>onto a printer, it prints for me perfectly. (I just did it.)
>>>>
>>>acrobat is installed, if I dbl click on the pdf, it is opened in acrobat,
>>>but dragging to the printer is a no go, wants a file association.
>>
>>Reinstall the latest Acrobat from Adobe.
>
>Why? it prints okay as is, it just has to open it first. With a working
>windows 9X setup, you don't tinker uneccesarily. THe registry is fragile
>enough as it is.
There is a problem with the installation if dragging a pdf to the
printer doesn't start Acrobat and print the object. The easiest fix
is usually to simply remove the old Acrobat and upgrade to the newest
one - it's free, and on a reasonably fast computer should take all of
2 minutes. Your registry concerns are unwarranted.
>>>>> Another thing, why is it that windows can't seem to deal with
>>>>>postscript files, under linux, there's ghost script and the like, all
>>>>>set up and easy as click to use, from the command line or gui. Sure, I
>>>>>can go to the effort of grabbing GS and GV for windows, but why doesn't
>>>>>it come with something similar?
>>>>
>>>>You'd have to tell me what those are before I can tell you what NT
>>>>does in their place.
>>>Ghostscript is a postscript interpreter, very versatile, knows pdf and ps
>>>and a lot more. GV is the X-frontend for GS and its not NT, 95
>>
>>You'd have to tell me why I'd need that, given that NT puts the PS
>>interpreter in the driver.
>
>Read my lips, it's 95, not NT.
Same difference WRT the PS printing.
>>>>>Ymmv, but for me, linux is easier to use, and with the exception of
>>>>>games, has better and more apps.
>>>>
>>>>In some ways yes, in some no.
>>>
>>>
>>>For what I do, it is.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>To top it all off, the W95 machine I was using briefly today froze, I had
>>>>>tried running telnet from the "Run" menu item, (have done so before with
>>>>>no prob) and the system froze, a few minutes later, it was rebooting, except
>>>>>it had somehow trashed the C: drive, which it no longer recognized as a
>>>>>bootable disk.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think anyone here seriously defends 95 as the 'be-all' machine
>>>>for work.
>>>>
>
>Nevertheless, Win95/98 are the vast majority of systems out there, in small
>companies all over, because the price of NT is too high, (not that Win9X is
>cheap mind, but it's usually included on the new systems, and the cost is
>hidden.)
You pay for what you want, and people have decided they want 98. It
would be easy enough for businesses to simply buy and roll out
machines with NT if they wanted; apparently many feel it isn't worth
the extra money, as 98 fills their need appropriately.
>>>It's not the be all for anything, it's ok for games, because they are written
>>>for it, but every game I have for linux is more stable than the windows version,
>>
>>All 5 of them? :) Yes, it's gotten better, especially with Loki, but
>>really, there's no comparison.
>
>Well, there are a couple of games out there I wouldn't mind trying on linux,
>EV is one, but it's not avail for windows either, so that's a moot point. But
>Civ CTP and Myth both take up more of my time than I should be spending
>on games anyway, only so many hours in a day, and some of them have to be
>spent at work.
>
>>>this is a small list admitadly. Win9X is only good for the games that have
>>>no linux version yet. NT might be better, but it's way too expensive, and I
>>>don't trust the boys in Redmond.
>>
>>So you've not run NT / Win2k?
>
>At a cost in excess of $300 for no net gain over linux? no, nor am I likely to.
> Allthough the newest desktop machine actually has the oomph to do so (PIII at
>550 Mhz and 128MB ram, nice machine, came with linux) I doubt I'll spend
>money on W2K. (I probably could score a copy illegally, but frankly, I don't
>support piracy, even of M$)
How do you know there's no net gain if you haven't run it?
------------------------------
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: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 21:31:37 -0500
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 01:14:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
wrote:
>>>You'd have to tell me why I'd need that, given that NT puts the PS
>>>interpreter in the driver.
>>
>>I suspect that he wants to read/preview PS files on the screen and
>>have the ability to print them on non-postscript printers. GS/GV
>>will do that under windows as well, but it could have been a
>>native capability.
>>
>> Les Mikesell
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>This is correct, I was going to install GS/GV for windows, but never got
>around to it, it was simply easier to ps2pdf the file on the linux machine,
>and print from the windows box via acrobat, annoying, far from "integrated"
>and slow, but it worked.
> It just boggles the mind that win9X doesn't know what to do with a postscript
>file...
Why would it? It's not as if I (or most users) routinely run across
raw .ps files.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: 28 Apr 2000 21:48:04 -0500
In article <8edf8l$5hn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I can't prove anything just by posting the logs, and to be honest I
>don't have them anymore. This was about 6 months ago.
>
>But almost everyone I know who's put Windows behind a Linux or *BSD
>autodialer has encountered the same problem - 'Doze tries, for
>whatever reason, to send packets outside the local network even when
>there's nothing that running that should need or want to.
>
>Because it happens so consistently, I'm sure it's easily reproducible,
>and I'm also sure that Microsoft or its apologists can come up with
>some nicer-sounding explanation or excuse for this behavior than that
>Microsoft is stealing my data.
No, this isn't even anything clever - it is just the silly netbios
name broadcasts trying to tell the rest of the world what you
called your computer.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 02:55:06 GMT
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 18:03:15 GMT, Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But running down the list in the process happens twice, once by the kernel
>and once by the thread. Actually, if a poll() call doesn't returnn
>immediatly the kernel runs down it twice.
Ok, I hadn't thought of that. According to the article you gave a pointer
to this takes longer than I thought it would.
>>Well, I suppose. But the limit on threads typically much smaller than the
>>limit on the number of file descriptors.
>Yes, that is true. You might want to look at
>http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rgooch/linux/docs/io-events.html
>for a good analisys of these issues.
Good article. Thanks for the pointer. It would appear that I was at
least on the same track. He seems to think that the best solution would
be a small number of threads poll()-ing for a few descriptors each.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux KILLED MY SYSEM!!! IT SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 02:54:44 GMT
You can't even make a boot disk?
Hey, can you, at least, open the computer ( not with a screwdriver ) OR it's
your boss that make it?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit dans le message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Fucking pice of shit Linux killed my system... Even the rescue disk
>won't work... To everyone thinking of running Linux. thik again...it
>really sucks...
>
>Speaking of sucking......................................
>
>
>Terry Porter sucks a great cock, ask his boyfriend....
>Mark Bilk is a faggot.....Ask his lover.
>
>Jedi is an asshole...Just read his messages.
>
>MLW is a Linux whore, sucking up money where he can.
>
>Bob (asshole) bryant is a disgrace to IBM......
>
>Still want to run Linux...IT SUCKS A BIG ONE!!!!!!!!
>
>LINUX BLOWWWSAASSSSSSSS
>
>
>BUY MSFT AND BECOME RICH!!!
>
>
>POSTED FROM LINSHIT SO YOU CAN ALL SEE HOW MUCH IT SUCKS>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability
Date: 28 Apr 2000 21:51:16 -0500
In article <8ec7oc$lpu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:BRdO4.71356$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The code hasn't been examined by as many people as you seem to suggest. Yes,
>> the availability is there to do so. There's no argument on that. However,
>> most of the people are just using Linux and wouldn't even know how to look
>> at the code. Then there are people who do know how to, but that's as far as
>> they get. The next group of people can do minor changes and so on. Not many
>> have the knowledge required to check the code for security flaws.
>> More and more security companies starting to look at different versions of
>> Linux, that's the good news. The bad news is that more and more security
>> flaws they find. The following site lists vulnerabilities for SuSE, FreeBSD,
>> etc...
>
>In fact, I would go so far as to say that the 3rd party review that Windows 2000
>has gone through (MS hired several top rated firms to review the code and test
>for
>security) is much more rigorous than the non-professional hobbyist review that
>Linux has gone through.
Isn't that like paying their own lawyers to say they haven't done anything
wrong even when an unbiased opinion might be different?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 28 Apr 2000 21:58:05 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 01:14:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>>>>You'd have to tell me why I'd need that, given that NT puts the PS
>>>>interpreter in the driver.
>>>
>>>I suspect that he wants to read/preview PS files on the screen and
>>>have the ability to print them on non-postscript printers. GS/GV
>>>will do that under windows as well, but it could have been a
>>>native capability.
>>
>>This is correct, I was going to install GS/GV for windows, but never got
>>around to it, it was simply easier to ps2pdf the file on the linux machine,
>>and print from the windows box via acrobat, annoying, far from "integrated"
>>and slow, but it worked.
>> It just boggles the mind that win9X doesn't know what to do with a postscript
>>file...
>
>Why would it? It's not as if I (or most users) routinely run across
>raw .ps files.
Errr... Lots of people have raw .ps files. The reason you don't is
that Microsoft would have had to share some of their wealth with
another company and follow published standards to include the tools
for you.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
