Linux-Advocacy Digest #409, Volume #26 Mon, 8 May 00 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (Leslie
Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Jim Stuyck)
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Perry Pip)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Re: Call me Paranoid - Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Shithead Distribution? (2:1)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Salvador Peralta)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Yannick")
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (David Steinberg)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Lyday)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (David Steinberg)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (G. Wayne Hines)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! ("RCS")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: 8 May 2000 10:31:57 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The net result of a virus infestation is a loss of productive time of
>the persons involved. What better example of Linux as an operating
>system.
What about it?
>Talk about a waste of time! I spent 2 weeks trying to install this
>piece of shit and finally gave up. I have installed every OS under the
>sun and moon since DOS 1.0 and could not get this piece of junk, Linux
>to operate correctly.
>From the rest of your message you obviously spent all of the time
dredging up negative comments from others instead of exploring
the system.
>Is this what you call a next generation OS?
I don't think so. One of the great advantages is that it
runs programs I wrote 15 years ago. Unlike that other
system that revises interfaces monthly.
>What generation is that? The year 2025?
>
>Shitty looking fonts under X windows,
Install what you want. What do fonts have to do with
an OS.
>Netscape?
>Netscape sucks under Windows also. NOBODY uses Netscape.
Cute. Do you work for Microsoft or have you just been
locked into their non-standard extensions?
>Security?
>Every fucking port is WIDE OPEN WITH A DEFAULT MANDRAKE INSTALL...GOOD
>SHOW!!!!!
You mean you didn't intend to use the services on the machine?
Hmmm... But you could have turned them off faster than complaining
that defaults rarely fit everyone. It is not a secret how
the services are controlled.
>Just setting up a simple network with a secure firewall has led me
>down a garden path of no less than 10 poorly written How-to's and a
>trek to numerous websites for information much of which is either
>outdated or in conflict with the last website I visited.
You can find misinformation about other systems too. Why is
that relevant? Your post is more misleading than any of
the old How-to's.
>Example, try the FAQ link on the samba website. It is a dead
>link...Great show guys..
Huh? How long did it take you to find a broken mirror site
so you could make this complaint?
>Apache seems to have been hacked, as I doubt they run Microsoft Back
>Office.
Fixed, not related to apache, with a full public explanation.
>Tasks that are soooooo easy under Windows are a nightmare under Linux.
>Networking for example....
>
>A couple of clicks and it works under Windows. How is this even
>remotely possible under Linux?
What are you talking about? Fill in the form and it works.
>Quite frankly I really don't give a flying fuck because Linux has
>pissed me of so much with it's archaic style of doing things that I
>intend to let every single person I know the truth about Linux and
>spread the word that LINUX SUX to all that will listen.
Hardly... None of the things you mention have anything to do with
Linux, and few sound like specific problems you encountered
personally. What is your real motive here?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jim Stuyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 15:49:44 GMT
Eric Bennett wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > In
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > et>, "Karen Mansbridge-Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > writes:
> > |On Mon, 08 May 2000 03:43:31 -0500, Eric Bennett wrote:
> > |
> > ||If we carry this argument to its logical conclusion, Gates is making a
> > ||case that the best thing for consumers would be to have a single
> > ||software company--Microsoft.
> > |
> > |And I suspect Bill Gates actually *believes* just that.
> > |Megalomaniacs often are deluded in that manner, imagining that
> > |their control is something that benefits everyone else and is
> > |therefore completely justified. They are often genuinely
> > |horrified that anyone would question that assumption.
> > |
> > |Karen
> >
> > A while back, Steve Ballmer was asked in an interview what
> > he thought MS's fair share of the software industry was...
> >
> > His reply? 100 per cent.
> >
> > So much for any settlement short of the DOJ's...
>
> That wasn't Ballmer. It was Mike Maples.
Well...in 1965, at an IBM Marketing Training class in Dallas, IBM's
then Vice President of the Data Processing Division for the Western
Region, F. G. "Buck" Rogers, was the special guest. After his
prepared remarks, the floor was opened for questions.
A trainee, having had some instruction on the "consent decree"
just a few days earlier, asked Buck if he, when he became a
salesman after training, should "hold back" a little, letting the
competition win every once in a while.
Buck's reply: "Don't you worry about that. IBM's share of the
business is ALL of the business."
Absolutely true story.
Yes, I was in the class. No, it wasn't me that asked the question.
No, it wasn't Mike Maples that asked the question.
By the way, Buck was an *impressive* guy, commanding respect
the moment he walked into the room. His book, "The IBM Way,
Insights into the World's Most Successful Marketing Organization,"
came out in 1986. It's an interesting read. ISBN 0-06-015522-1.
Jim Stuyck
IBM, Retired
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 15:46:47 GMT
On Mon, 8 May 2000 08:41:01 -0400, Nik Simpson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 8 May 2000 12:32:23 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >An executable and a script are two very different things.
>> >
>>
>> A script *is* an executable. At least it is that way on my system.
>> Although an executable is not necessarily a script.
>>
>Perl is an executable, a Perl script is not an executable in that sense, its
>just a text file that you execute using PERL.
However, In Unix, a perl script is commonly regarded as an executable and
treated as such by the system even at the kernel level. In this respect,
you can call a perl script simply by typing the filename at the command
line, just as you would a binary executable. At a lower level, when a perl
script is executed (either by a command shell or by an application) a call
is made to execve() (usually after a fork()) with the filename of the
script as the first argument to execve(). When you open a data file like a
jpeg, you cannot open it directly with execve(). Instead, you must
explicitly execve() the jpeg veiwer and pass the jpeg filename to the
viewer as an argument, just as you must explictly call the veiwer as a
command.
execve() in Linux specifically is handled by the kernel level call
do_execve(). When do_execve() is called, it will first check the
permission bit of the file passed to to see if execution is permitted. If
so, it will then determine how to handle the file by checking the first
few bytes of the file. If the file begins with "#!", then do_execve() will
pass the file to the specified interpreter. If the file is an ELF binary,
then it must begin with characters '0x7F' 'E' 'L' 'F', or do_execve will
not know what to do with the file. Similarily, their are other headers
used for other binary executable types.
>When you make a Perl script
>executable you have to:
>1. Tell the OS what to use to interpret the script, typically a #! in UNIX
>or a file association in Windows
And when my compiler builds an ELF binary it must "tell the OS" that it is
an ELF binary, with a \x7fELF at the beginning of the file. Open some
Linux binaries with a hex editor and see for yourself.
>2. Give the file execute permissions
>
>An executable only needs the latter step.
No, the only difference is how execve() handles the executable file after
it has read the beginning bytes . A script executable is passed to an
interpretor. A java binary is passed to a jvm. ELF binary text and data
segments are loaded into memory directly with mmap(). Other non-native
binaries are passed to whatever kernel module handles them.
The fact that windows regards a script file like any other file that is
simply "opened" by an "application", like a jpeg file is opened by a
viewer, and does not in any way discriminate between the two is a security
issue for windows.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 16:01:49 GMT
On Sun, 07 May 2000 23:08:26 -0400, proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The net result of a virus infestation is a loss of productive time of
>the persons involved. What better example of Linux as an operating
>system.
>
>Talk about a waste of time! I spent 2 weeks trying to install this
>piece of shit and finally gave up. I have installed every OS under the
>sun and moon since DOS 1.0 and could not get this piece of junk, Linux
>to operate correctly.
>
WOW! You're a real moron.
1) put CD in drive
2) push reset
3) click OK at all the prompts.
Total time to install: 45 minutes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Call me Paranoid - Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 16:03:40 GMT
On Sun, 07 May 2000 06:15:12 GMT, Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 6 May 2000 22:44:14 -0500,
> Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>>The virus downloaded and installed another trojan called WIN-BUGFIX.EXE,
>>which did steal passwords, but the virus itself does not.
>I am disagreeing with your claim that it did none of this. You were
>wrong, you even admit as much in the above.
You will find that Erik's hair-splitter is one of the sharpest around. I
believe it can split a human hair into at least 18 distinct parts.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Shithead Distribution?
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 17:08:21 +0100
mws wrote:
>
> Your not actually taking this idiot seriously,are you?
>
> Marada C. Shradrakaii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >I am trying to run Linux on an 8088 computer with a 300 baud modem and
> > >5 megabyte hard disk. I have been told about a distribution of Linux
> > >called Shithead. I can't seeem to locate this anywhere on the net?
> > >Could some kind soul offer assistance?
> >
> > Might I suggest Minix instead? It's open-sourced (finally!) and runs
> > surprisingly well on a 640k 8086 from two 720k floppy drives. You should
> be
> > able to run it off of floppies for experimentation, but it's unlikely that
> > you'd be able to install much more than the contents of the boot floppies
> in
> > 5Mb. There's also ELKS, a Linux-alike for the 8086/8, but it's not as
> proven.
> >
> > You might consider just selling that 5M drive as a collectible (I'd think
> an
> > original ST-506 would do well) and buying a $400 or so low-end machine
> from a
This is a serious qustion:
Anyone any idea how well either would run on a 286 with 640K memory. I
(might) soon have one to play with.
Would thay have any kind of memory protection (can the 286 do that?)
-ED
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 09:20:09 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Boris wrote:
>
> > Given Microsoft's track record for sabotaging competitors, I would not
> > be surprised if there were plenty of APIs which revealed whether the
> > app was Microsoft friendly and if not, some random spurious msgs
> > would be generated causing that app to fail or perform badly.
> That's not true.
Actually, it is true that they insert spurious messages into code and
write code that degrades the performance of their competitors. DR-DOS,
which was dealt with in the Federal lawsuit is one example. Netscape is
another that was addressed in the lawsuit. And the "if wordperfect then
declare a font allocation error when no such error exists" is a third.
As to whether they continue to use undocumented API's, I doubt if you
could know either way. The operative word here is "undocumented".
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 16:19:48 GMT
I don't know for all the applications, but as for Word, you can put it in Word97
compatibility mode (That is, all new options
are deactivated. Apart from that I beleive the file formats in 97 and 2K are the
same). It
has to be done for each file, though
(but shouldn't be necessary if you use only the old features), but maybe if you turn
it on
in normal.dot...
I've been using it at work, i've encountered no problem.
Yannick
yvalot /at/ libertysurf /dot/ fr
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arclight) writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2 May 2000 18:26:50 -0700, "Bob May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Go buy a new copy of Word for Windows 1.0.
> > >Go buy a new copy of Visual Basic 2.0
> > >YOU CAN'T!!!!! All you can buy is the newer versions of the programs
> > >which also cost a lot more than the earlier versions.
> >
> > So? what's wrong with that?
>
> We run Office97.
>
> How do we buy new copies for the new machines (which aren't just
> replacing the old ones).
>
> Either we all have to upgrade to Office2000, or the new machines go
> without...
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Date: 8 May 2000 11:18:55 -0500
In article <zAuR4.74$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Open" in GUIs like Windows, MacOS, KDE etc is a synonym for "activate"
>>
>> No, it means OPEN.
>
>No, it means execute the registered file type for a given document and pass
>the document to that application.
Aside from being dangerous in this case, it is also extremely annoying
for files that are routinely accessed with several different
programs for different purposes. Why does an OS think that
a file 'belongs' to a particular program?
>> "open" only becomes a problem when "document" and "program"
>> become too blurred.
>
>The script is a document.
Then it is likely that you would want to be able to view the contents
sometimes, or edit it instead of running it. Why is exectuting
the default?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 8 May 2000 16:22:32 GMT
Eric Bennett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: You can read a Gates editorial on this subject in Time Magazine. In
: this article we learn, among other things, that without Microsoft, the
: concept of toolbars would have been patented and software companies
: would not have been able to freely use them.
What an amazing piece of writing! Has Bill ever taken a class in
logic, ciritical thinking and argumentation? I doubt it...
"Had those toolbars been created elsewhere, they no doubt would have been
patented and never incorporated into Windows."
"No doubt," Bill. Care to back that claim up with some proof, Bill? Of
course not. Bill's a smart guy, so would anyone question his claims?
On the other hand, aren't there a few elements of the Windows GUI that
weren't actually developed at Microsoft? How did that happen?
But nothing tops this...
"Updates to Windows and Office technologies that could, for example,
protect against attacks such as the LoveBug virus would also be much
harder for computer users to obtain."
Yes, Bill. The DOJ is trying to take away your ability to protect your
customers, for whom you care so deeply, from ILOVEYOU. Considering how
long it's been since Melissa, I don't know how they could possibly slow
down the release of such updates to technology any more.
--
David Steinberg -o) In a world without walls
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \ and fences, who needs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v Windows and Gates?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 09:21:21 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
> You are misrepresenting what he said. He said that the OS would not be what
> it is today without having taken code from it's applications and rolled it
> into Windows. He did not say that Office could not be done without access
> to Windows, he said Windows could not be what it is today without access to
> Office (and other) source code.
Hmmm, so Be is incapable of writing a good OS cuz they only make OS's
and not programs, too?
>>
> His claim is that all software developers benefit from the work done in
> Microsoft application divisions, since Microsoft takes that code and makes
> it available to 3rd parties via Windows API's.
Yeah but they hide the best API's from a lot of them and save them for
MS programers.
--
Bob
"Earth hath no sorrows that Earth cannot heal." John Muir
Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 12:25:54 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "boat_goat"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Germer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:3916b920$4$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> If you REALLY believe that, I have some shares in a bridge between two of
>> New York City's boroughs which I will sell you cheap.
>>
>Do you have some evidence to offer or just an attitude?
>
>
Evidence? You want evidence? Why, you MS-paid homosexual pervert, you!
;)
(Two bucks says Bob either ignores the above post or responds with more
or less what I just said.)
--
| Andrew Glasgow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: 8 May 2000 16:30:38 GMT
Eric Bennett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: > Hopefully you're rolling your eyes at David Ignatius, the writer of that
: > piece ?
: I'm not sure who to roll my eyes at. Do you think Ignatius just made a
: random guess at who invented XML, or do you think Microsoft gave him a
: hint?
I think that if you read the article, you'll see it's a complete
regurgitation of an interview with Steve Ballmer. I can't find many
other statements in the article that aren't repetition, quoted or not, of
what Ballmer said. Can you?
Based on this, it's the safer conclusion that Ballmer told him that XML
was invented by two Microsoft technologists.
--
David Steinberg -o) In a world without walls
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \ and fences, who needs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v Windows and Gates?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 08 May 2000 10:34:05 -0600
Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Capitalism is moving inexorably towards corporate centralization
> and has been for the last 100 years at least, despite the ravings
> of US libertarian capitalists. Look at the media.
The web obviates all that.
Witness Slashdot.
The ultimate goal of a CEO may be towards corporate centrailzation,
but our (Earth's) nature does not tolerate uniformity, no matter how
hard they try. It's one of the beauties of the free market, it
requires little maintenance to keep it functioning fairly because
there will always be an individual who is unhappy with the market
leader's product.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (G. Wayne Hines)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 16:40:54 GMT
In an earlier episode, "Karen Mansbridge-Wood"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 May 2000 03:43:31 -0500, Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> >If we carry this argument to its logical conclusion, Gates is making a
> >case that the best thing for consumers would be to have a single
> >software company--Microsoft.
>
> And I suspect Bill Gates actually *believes* just that.
> Megalomaniacs often are deluded in that manner, imagining that
> their control is something that benefits everyone else and is
> therefore completely justified. They are often genuinely
> horrified that anyone would question that assumption.
What about Gates' suggestion that splitting Microsoft would make
it less able to adequately provide security to protect consumers
against such things as the "I Love You" virus? I laughed after I
got over the urge to toss my cookies.
gwh
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] G. Wayne Hines #
# Team OS/2 Kentville, NS, Canada #
# I don't wanna work. I just want to ride on the train all day #
# http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/w.d.hines/express.html #
------------------------------
From: "RCS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 18:29:21 +0200
My brother, whose only experience with computers was an old Macintosh, who
has never installed anything on anything, after a few pointers over the
phone installed Caldere OpenLinux 2.3 on a Pentium 133 Mhz (that is, not
very new hardware).
I seriously doubt you have this extensive experience with insalling
operative systems.
RCS
proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
.news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The net result of a virus infestation is a loss of productive time of
> the persons involved. What better example of Linux as an operating
> system.
>
> Talk about a waste of time! I spent 2 weeks trying to install this
> piece of shit and finally gave up. I have installed every OS under the
> sun and moon since DOS 1.0 and could not get this piece of junk, Linux
> to operate correctly.
>
> Is this what you call a next generation OS?
>
> What generation is that? The year 2025?
>
> Shitty looking fonts under X windows,
> Netscape?
> Netscape sucks under Windows also. NOBODY uses Netscape.
> Security?
> Every fucking port is WIDE OPEN WITH A DEFAULT MANDRAKE INSTALL...GOOD
> SHOW!!!!!
>
>
>
> Just setting up a simple network with a secure firewall has led me
> down a garden path of no less than 10 poorly written How-to's and a
> trek to numerous websites for information much of which is either
> outdated or in conflict with the last website I visited.
>
> Example, try the FAQ link on the samba website. It is a dead
> link...Great show guys..
>
> Apache seems to have been hacked, as I doubt they run Microsoft Back
> Office.
>
> Tasks that are soooooo easy under Windows are a nightmare under Linux.
> Networking for example....
>
> A couple of clicks and it works under Windows. How is this even
> remotely possible under Linux?
>
> Quite frankly I really don't give a flying fuck because Linux has
> pissed me of so much with it's archaic style of doing things that I
> intend to let every single person I know the truth about Linux and
> spread the word that LINUX SUX to all that will listen.
>
> It really does suck the big Onion.....
>
> PROCULOUS
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
