Linux-Advocacy Digest #426, Volume #26 Tue, 9 May 00 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Eric Bennett)
CNN: Linux will remain immune (Perry Pip)
Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Re: Which OS is WORST? (The Cat)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (The Cat)
Re: What have you done? (Mig Mig)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (The Cat)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (The Cat)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! ("2 + 2")
Re: Let's POLL! ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: So what is wrong with X? (Stuart Krivis)
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (Stuart Krivis)
Re: What have you done? (Steve Harvey)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (Leslie
Mikesell)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (The Cat)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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: Tue, 09 May 2000 16:20:54 -0500
In article <UgYR4.177$v3.2852@uchinews>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(david raoul derbes) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ...an absolutely brilliant article. Bravo! Bravo!!
>
> This thought was lodged somewhere in my cranium for years, but it never
> found its way into consciousness till Eric put it into plain speech.
>
> For a decade or more we've heard about this Chinese wall between
> apps and OS development, right? Now it transpires that the existence
> of such a wall would have posed a threat to the well-being of MS.
> In short, it never existed. No surprise to many of us, but somewhat
> refreshing to see admitted, finally, by Redmond.
They admitted the absence of a wall as far back as 1995. See James
Gleick's 1995 article on Microsoft, which discusses this subject:
http://www.around.com/microsoft.html
> It is absolutely clear that Bill and the boys believe (even if they
> have never admitted it to themselves) that there should be no other
> software besides Microsoft-ware. Years ago, one of their top execs said,
> and I quote: we want our fair share, and we think that's 100%. (Brad
> Silverberg, IIRC.)
Mike Maples.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect,even when you take into
account Hofstadter's Law.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: CNN: Linux will remain immune
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 20:20:04 GMT
from
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/05/09/linux.immune.idg/index.html
"But here's the point: Linux users are likely to remain immune to such
things as the ILOVEYOU virus, even when there are feature-rich (email)
clients such as Magellan. They are likely to remain immune due to the fact
that Linux is open source, and because Linux promotes competition."
"Linux and much of its application software is written and distributed by
people who understand the value of open source. Put bluntly, most
developers in the Linux community would not be *stupid* enough to create a
program as insecure and dangerous as Outlook. And if anyone were foolish
enough to do so in the open source community, such a design would not be
likely to survive the peer review it would receive."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 20:31:16 GMT
On Tue, 09 May 2000 05:04:37 GMT, Joseph Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>It seems to me that lilo installed itself onto the windoze MBR in C: I know
>because I ran into the same problem when I installed Turbo Linux on my
>system. During setup I had the option of installing LILO onto the MBR. I
>clicked yes, but after that I ended up with LI... and a hung system. To fix
>this there is an undocumented option in the windoze fdisk utility: "/MBR".
>First boot into your windows system using your windows system disk then type
>"fdisk /MBR" this should restore the MBR back to its original form. This
>works for Win95 doesn't work for NT and I'm not sure about Win98.
>
ALL operating systems have to install something in to the MBR of a particular
partition.
The difference is that MS operating systems will also wipe the boot sector
to prevent the use of a foreign boot manager.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 20:32:47 GMT
On 8 May 2000 21:57:15 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Of course, if you buy something that intentionally locks you into
>a single-vendor OS (winmodem/winprinter???) you can't blame
>someone else for that problem.
>
>>And now you have installed a basic Linux system with minimal security.
>
>One of those prompts was for the security level. You might also
>be interested to note that RedHat 6.2 no longer starts most network
>services for a workstation install (inetd doesn't even run).
>Personally, I want most of services running - that's why I
>have the machine - but if you don't and can't figure out how to
>stop them there is now an easy way to get there.
I've used RH 6.1 and 6.2 and both had everything locked solid. It prompted
for a root password (no default) and there were no default user accounts
available from outside.
------------------------------
From: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which OS is WORST?
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 20:41:09 GMT
And I thought I was the only one that likes green screens. I think it
dates back to my having to repair IBM 3277's and 3278's back in the
1970's and 80's.
I find green on black easier on the eyes than black on white or white
on black.
I set the default console in kde to green on black. It works until I
try a new theme that has it's own ideas :)
On Mon, 08 May 2000 18:44:49 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Linux of course....It sucks so bad, has no usable applications and is
>> truely a nostaglic trip back into how computing was done in the 1970's
>> Green screen city dude..... In short, we are not interested...
>
>What's wrong with green screens. A sample from my .Xdefaults is
>XTerm*foreground: green
>XTerm*background: black
>
>But that aside, no installation of linux I've seen comes with green
>screens.
>Does anyone know how to make everything on the consolg green all the
>time?
>
>
>I *like* green screens. They're easy to look at. Now I have to find
>someone willing to sell me a green screen moniter for my BBC Micro...
>
>-Ed
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Take your shit operating system somewhere else.
>>
>> Windows rulllezzz dude's.....And don't you forget it!!!!
TheCat (Steve)
"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
------------------------------
From: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 20:48:13 GMT
I did a number of installs of the various distributions a while back
and even the slowest (SuSE, spends a lot of time copying packages) was
way ahead of Windows in ease and speed of installation and I'm not
even counting loading DOS, CDROM drivers (for Windows) and so forth.
FWIW I have installed AIX (on RS 6k Sp/2 nodes) and OS/400 and both
are pretty simple, although loading perspectives on AIX can be a pia.
On Mon, 08 May 2000 22:24:31 -0400, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David Steinberg wrote:
>
>> proculous ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> : 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.
>>
>> Every operating system under the sun and moon, eh?
>>
>> SunOS/Solaris?
>> AIX?
>> BSD?
>> SCO?
>>
>
>Don't forget VM/ESA, OS/390, and OS/400. I doubt he ever installed any of
>these. I haven't either, but I did install Linux for S/390 on VM/ESA
>(well, only on a temp disk since I didn't have enough permanent disk
>space). It was a piece of cake.
>
>Gary
TheCat (Steve)
"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What have you done?
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 22:52:18 +0200
Seán Ó Donnchadha wrote:
> Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Using Micro$oft Shitware is
> >like prison gang rape, and the winvocates are analogous to people
> >who enjoy being subjected to such activities.
> >
>
> Maybe it's simpler than that. Maybe they just don't enjoy being
> associated with assholes like you. I believe that systems like the
> Amiga and OS/2 would have done much better had their advocates not
> gone around calling everyone else in the world idiots, sheep, etc.
>
> As an advocate, you want more people to use your favorite platform;
> that way it'll get more support and you'll be happier. This is
> undoubtedly what you want; it is why you're here. The only question is
Nonsens! Youre forgetting the most important part - Who'w using that
platform? Is that "sexy" people? Are they part of the elite? etc.. Clearly
Windows users are not sexy and are not part of any elite, they are just
average ... not much apeal in that
> how you choose to go about advocating your platform. History has shown
> time and time again that smugness, insults, and disgusting analogies
> like the above are exactly the wrong thing to do; rather than
> influencing people to join you, they have exactly the opposite effect.
Nonsens.. these advocacy groups dont mean anything at all. Real life is
experience and influence much more important.
Lets take Windows vs Linux in the working enviroment. Those two
platforms live side by side peacefully and people doing real work use what
is best at a given moement. However i have a hard time to find a Windows
NT admin (MSCE or not) that actually is satisfied with NT..especially
when they have people around them using Linux and experiencing how happy
those users are with Linux. They are seing Linux machines running for months
or years without a single reboot. This is the best Linux advocacy possible
and the only insult here is Linux's stability compared to NT's lack of it.
I know NT is unstable and has memory leacks and you know it too... so cut
the crap!
finding a Windows NT admin that does not say that NT is crap compared to
Linux... the only thing they miss is functionallity provided by some
specific applications not existing
------------------------------
From: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 20:51:04 GMT
Crap is an understatement. One of the kids just loaded it on the
family PC and it destroyed the DUN settings and generally made a mess
of things.
No wonder they give you 500 hours for free. This way you can't sue
them when it takes you 500 hours to straighten out your system.
On Mon, 08 May 2000 22:58:39 -0500, John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Gary Hallock wrote:
>>
>> The Cat wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Aol is the ultitmate virus. Those CD's keep replicating in my mailbox.
>> >
>> > BTW that was not me..
>> >
>> > TheCat (Steve)
>> >
>> > "Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
>>
>> I long for the good old days when they sent floppy disks in the mail. At
>> least those I could use as free blank disks. Those CDs just get tossed in
>> the garbage.
>>
>> Gary
>
>If only they would send that crap on a CDRW...
>
>jt
TheCat (Steve)
"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
------------------------------
From: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 20:52:47 GMT
I don't think it was DOS 4 because that was such a disaster. I seem to
recall either 5.0 or 6.0 but I think DRDOS had it before that.
I had custom floppies set up to play games.
One config for each game.
On Mon, 08 May 2000 19:17:39 -0500, Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>> What really irked me is that every app (game) had it's own
>> ideas about which of the three types of memory it wanted to
>> use. So, you couldn't merely be content to tune your memory
>> once and be done with it.
>
>He he, no kidding. I had 7 or 8 different setups listed on the boot
>menu mainly just to set the memory differently for one or two apps
>each. When did that boot menu appear anyway? DOS 5? 4?
TheCat (Steve)
"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 16:56:53 -0400
Darren Winsper wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 9 May 2000 05:22:38 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Of course, Sun bought Netscape to ensure it would never have much of a
>> future except as part of the Java "ambiance" to help Sun sell its
overpriced
>> servers.
>
>Err...AOL bought Netscape, not Sun.
It was a three way deal between Netscape, AOL and Sun.
Sun got the non-browser parts plus Sun and AOL have a technology deal. AOL
doesn't have the tech capability on its own.
One motivation for Sun to get into the deal is not to have a competitor to
its Java platform.
Now if a company like SAP had the browser, it would be producing powerful
products.
2 + 2
>
>--
>Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
>Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
>DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
>This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Let's POLL!
Date: 9 May 2000 21:10:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Just because some 12 year old kid launches a VB script virus,
: and YOUR company ingests this virus, should the employee's
: who have double clicked our the attachment using YOUR companies
: OUTLOOK EXPRESS be disciplined?
Mildly, yes. They should be made aware that their caused significant
damage to the company. They should be instructed not to do this sort
of thing again.
: Why do you figure that corporations establish policies
: such as these? Don't they realize that someday, someone,
: will indeed take this to court and challenge this.
: Do corporate institutions think they can WIN in a situation
: where THEY gave the employee in question the power to
: EXECUTE a virus from the software the corporation provided to
: ALL their employee's, trained or NOT.,
Along with the power an employee is given comes the responsibility to
use that power in a wise manner - in general, meaning in (or at least
not contrary to) the interests of the company granting such power.
: Is it intelligent for a company to have a policy, where by,
: it is forbidden to click on any E-mail attachments?
I would far prefer a technological solution, whereby macro virii are
disabled by company policy, external documents are scanned for virii
prior to being allowed onto the network, and internal documents are
allowed to be exchanged only in nonproprietary formats (e.g., HTML,
RTF, etc.) Preferably, platforms and office packages that are prone
to macro virii should not be used in a business setting, but, if they
are, they should be carefully controlled to ensure they are not used
as a vehicle for virii or other breaches of confidentiality or
security.
As an interim solution, until proprietary shitware can be phased out
completely, yes, employees should be instructed not to open
attachments of any kind from within Outlook or similar programs.
: Is it intelligent for a company to DRILL your systems administrator
: for allowing the virus to come into your company, even though there is
: NOTHING he can really do about it!
The firewall admins really aren't responsible; macro virii are not
among the things firewalls are designed to block.
The network admins may or may not be. Access to network resources
should generally be granted on an as-needed basis. Networks with
huge world-writable shares are simply accidents waiting to happen.
ILOVEYOU wiped out a lot of these.
As for E-mail admins, they bear somewhat greater responsibility. It's
been known for a very long time that macro virii were a significant
threat and that most of these virii were vectored primarily by E-mail.
E-mailing attachments is wasteful. (The appropriate means for sharing
documents is to post them to a Web, FTP, or file server and then
e-mail the link.) It is absolutely unnecessary in a corporate
setting. It should be allowed only under very limited circumstances,
or not at all.
: Does it make any sense to continue to blame the 12 year old
: who wrote the script and sent it out via an E-mail to drop
: ? the Microsoft equipped corporations around the world?
If the appropriate elements can be proven (causality, intent,
awareness of consequences, etc.) then absolutely. No one intelligent
enough to craft a virus capable of billions of dollars of damage
should be above the law, no matter what his or her age.
But then neither should Microsoft.
: Shouldn't we make it a policy within the United States to
: EXPECT terrorist actions from within and abroad based on
: past actions, example, OKC?
Given the nature of U.S. foreign and domestic policy, which is to
fairly overtly sponsor terrorism both here and abroad, it would be
foolish not to expect some of our "government's" opponents to stoop to
similar tactics.
Not sure what this has to do with ILOVEYOU. The destruction of
billions of dollars of assets is a great crime, and one for which
those responsible (including but definitely not limited to the virus
writer, Microsoft, and those who choose to implement insecure
Microsoft solutions) should be held at least civilly liable. However,
it does not begin to compare or equate to terrorism.
: Does it make sense to you
: that corporations such as defense contractors will put
: up huge concrete barricades, and hire guards equipped with
: bomb sniffing dogs yet continue to allow Microsoft in their
: offices as the mainstay of their E-mail handling clients?
That in my opinion is absolutely foolish.
: Have you heard someone within your organization BLAME the
: problem we've just experienced with the ILOVEYOU virus on
: the fact that the operating system was connected to the
: internet in the first place? Does this kind of explanation
: logic seem flawed to you in any way?
The Internet is an insecure and in some respects unreliable network.
This has always been true. It was built on a basis of trust, in an
age when the Net population much more closely resembled that of a
small town than that of a large nation.
But all of life is full of risks, and in most other areas of life, we
learn to manage those risks, and to make informed choices regarding
them.
We know that automobile travel is dangerous for instance, but in
geographically large countries such as the U.S. and Canada, it is
usually the only way to travel between two arbitrary points, so we
accept the risk, but minimize it to the greatest extent possible. We
don't hold individuals culpable for genuine accidents that were no
one's fault, but we *do* hold them culpable for causing accidents out
of negligence, recklessness, or willful intent, and we penalize
activities that are unreasonably dangerous even if they don't in fact
cause an accident in that particular instance.
In the same way, there are unavoidable risks that accompany being
connected to the net, but there are also significant benefits, so we
can and should accept the benefits but work to minimize the risk; if
we don't, we may very well be culpable for our failure to do so.
: Wouldn't it be MORE intelligent to run an OS such as LINUX
: ,where by, employee's could click on A script or .exe and
: have nothing happen as it WON'T run it! They can look at it
: but it won't trash out their corporate world then E-mail
: the rest of the world with a copy of itself?
This is largely a cost-benefit issue, and it's skewed by the
vendor-lock that most Microsoft customers already face. Trillions of
dollars have been invested in software, hardware, and training that is
to some extent Microsoft-specific.
I've moved everything that I directly control to Linux or other
open-source platforms already, but I'm not prepared to suggest that a
large company such as the one I work for can accomplish the same goal
instantaneously. There have to be some significant changes in
corporate culture first. And, to be honest, Linux still needs some
work before it will be widely accepted on the desktop, although it is
more than capable of challenging Microsoft anyplace else.
I do strongly advocate making a gradual move toward open-source
products and nonproprietary protocols wherever possible. Even a
mostly Microsoft-centric shop can and should be making strategic use
of cross-platform tools and technologies such as HTML, DHTML, Java,
CORBA, XML, PostScript, Perl, Python, ANSI-standard SQL, C and C++,
various GUI toolkits such as Tk, Gtk+ and Qt, and so forth.
One can use VBA to write simple scripts to export Office documents, to
document and upsize Access databases, and so forth. Converting VB and
MFC apps is a great deal more work, but by carefully partitioning
front-end, business logic, and data access layers, one can at least
minimize the amount of redesign that a rewrite using standard tools
will require.
This is all very well worth doing, yet hardly anyone is doing it.
Why? It all takes time and money, and the payoff is not immediate -
it's long-term, and we just don't live in a culture where immediate
rewards are often deferred in favor of longer-term benefits.
: How many people have you met who still don't seem to understand that
: Microsoft operating systems are based on a
: nearly 20 year old tradition of a stand alone P.C. Concept?
: That security was never an issue for Microsoft? Do you now
: understand why Microsoft says security isn't an issue with
: Windows?
Even now I find lots of people who are clueless. I don't understand
it. But then I don't watch TV, and thus don't get exposed to the
reams of fraudulent pro-MS propaganda that apparently dominates many
networks' advertising budgets.
: I'm going to be very curious to read the answers if anybody
: responds on this newsgroup. I would love to read the answers. What
: are YOUR answers to these questions.
My answer is that we have been adequately warned, and it is time to
start educating people about the dangers of Microsoft shitware, not
only in terms of susceptibility to virii and denial of service
attacks, but also vendor-lock, lost productivity, possible breaches of
confidentiality, and massive cost overruns.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: So what is wrong with X?
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 07:09:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 28 Apr 2000 15:47:53 GMT, 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
This all sounds a bit like SCO's Tarantella. I haven't tried Tarantella, but
the concept is interesting.
--
Stuart Krivis
*** Remove "mongo" in headers for valid reply hostname
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 07:15:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2 May 2000 21:26:03 -0500, Jen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm growing weary of this "where is the Microsoft innovation" crap.
>
>Where is the "innovation" is an operating system that has it's roots
>in the 1960s (Linux). But, OH!, it has new GUIs that can actually
>present a common look and feel among applications and do such wondrous
>things as drag-n-drop! And to top it off, it only has a tiny fraction
>of the applications and hardware support that that "non-innovative" OS
>has! Wow.
>
>Innovation, schminovation.
You're only able to post this because of a long history of innovation on the
unix platform. Your article is currently residing on a unix machine, and is
certainly on others around the world. I'll give you a hint - the large news
providers do not run NT.
--
Stuart Krivis
*** Remove "mongo" in headers for valid reply hostname
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Harvey)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What have you done?
Date: 9 May 2000 21:15:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert wrote:
>What has your company done to stop further virus contamination
>to the Microsoft Operating system environment?
Not much has been necessary where I work. I'm on the Unix side
(Linux/HP-UX/Solaris), so "ILOVEYOU" didn't materially affect my day
in the least. The user LAN here is Win95 with Banyan Vines networking
and Banyan BeyondMail email... It's a clunky program from what I
hear, but I'm pretty sure nobody got infected.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: 9 May 2000 16:17:16 -0500
In article <5LXR4.5582$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
whistler <blahblah> wrote:
>>>Who is taking about Windows only devices. Buy a bleeding edge card and 9 times
>>
>>>out of 10 you are SOL. It has gotten better, but it still ain't there yet.
>>
>>Now you are down to a simple chicken/egg problem. The hardware vendors
>>will provide drivers for the most popular operating systems. Let them
>>know what you want.
>>
>Yup..... that is what the problem has always been.
Linux has to be the world's fastest-growing OS, so vendors can't ignore
it much longer. Some, like Digiboard were paying attention all
along - others like ATI have come around recently.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 21:37:42 GMT
This is true. Could you imagine what it must have been like to work in
tech support for a game software company back then?
Yikes!
The dam mouse driver took something like 14k by itself.
On Tue, 09 May 2000 13:46:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote on Mon, 08 May 2000 14:01:26 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>On Mon, 08 May 2000 05:45:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If you genuinely have sparred with any form of DOS, then
>>> you should certainly be able to handle a sweetheart like
>>> Linux. Given your carrying on, I don't for a minute
>>> believe you have ANY experience with DOS at all.
>>>
>>> no pnp, no services, no bundled device drivers, manual
>>> memory management: that's DOS.
>>
>>For once I agree with you jedi. I made a lot of money juggling Hi
>>memory and excluding mapped sections using QEMM so that users had
>>enough memory below 640k to run their applications.
>>
>>Virtually any operating system is a pussycat to install compared to
>>those days, where you really had to know something.
>>
>>I think my record was 623k or something like that free.
>
>Have I got a game for you! :-)
>
>It was called Delta-V, basically a Necromancer-genre
>limited-flight simulator shoot-em-up, and it required
>600K of conventional memory just to *start up*.
>
>I'm glad those days of worrying about "conventional memory"
>are over.
>
>(And don't get me started on those network stacks. Yecch. :-) )
>
>>>>
>>
>>TheCat (Steve)
>>
>>"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
TheCat (Steve)
"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
