Linux-Advocacy Digest #502, Volume #26 Sun, 14 May 00 19:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Gary Hallock)
Re: Online Banking (Alan Boyd)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (I R A Darth Aggie)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Marty)
progamming models, unix vs Windows (mlw)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Nyarlathotep)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Darren Winsper)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Darren Winsper)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Christopher Browne)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Re: System uptime message. ("ne...")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 17:12:30 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Full Name wrote:
>
>
> We decided to put Linux on a Dell notebook about a month ago. It's
> still not networked. The local Linux experts have ordered another
> PCMCIA net card for it. The funny thing is that the supplied card was
> specifically chosen to be Linux friendly.
>
> I must admit, when I see them hunched over the notebook typing away at
> the keyboard trying to get the thing work they do have expressions on
> their faces like they have pineapples up their arses.
So. I installed Redhat Linux 6.1 on my 760XL Thinkpad with a PCMCIA
modem and a PCMCIA token ring card. It works perfectly. I plug into
the local LAN and have NFS and AFS up and running. I even have Lotus
Notes running under Wine. It sure beats using Windows to run Notes.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Online Banking
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 16:17:07 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> For Redhat I meant 4.61 not 6.1. I forgot to mention the Netscape 4.7 I
> have has 128 bit encryption and it works with many sites. My bank does
> NOT require a 128 bit browser. They claim to have a global key that
> allows 128 bit encryption with any 4.0 or above browser. I confirmed
> this in Win 95 where any damn browser works. In Linux NONE of the
> browsers I tried worked. Isn't this bullshit. Has Microsoft somehow made
> some secure server software that is incompatiable with Linux browsers.
> This would only effect banks using some sort of Microsoft garbage.
It's unlikely since Netcraft reports that:
www.citifi.com is running Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP3 on Solaris
http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=www.citifi.com
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I R A Darth Aggie)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: 14 May 2000 21:26:36 GMT
Reply-To: no-courtesy-copies-please
On Sat, 13 May 2000 23:05:04 -0400,
Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
<CJoT4.1472$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+
+ I R A Darth Aggie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
+ news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
+ > + I am a seasoned programmer and I am not afraid at all of getting my
+ > + feet wet.
+ >
+ > Go volunteer with the Berlin group.
+ They don't seem to be making extreme progress
Gee, maybe some more volunteers might help?
James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities - Jean McGuire
To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
<url:http://www.perl.com/CPAN/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Sun, 14 May 2000 16:44:16 -0500
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name) writes:
>
> > On 8 May 2000 17:26:29 GMT,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >In Personal Computer World there was an interesting story about a
> > >similar thing. When using Netscape on MS's web site, a certain page
> > >would give a 404 error. However, when a pref was set to use an
> > >IE-style User-Agent string, the same page came up perfectly.
> > >Interesting...
> >
> > I've done a fair amount of WWW page development. IE is simply more
> > forgiving with improperly syntaxed HTML than Netscape.
>
> Of course you know that a 404 doesn't come from the browser, right?
It's pretty common to have content customized for a particular browser, and
when you have a website as large as MS, sometimes links get broken. Which
is probably what happened in this case (404 means missing content).
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 16:48:42 -0500
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > That is not the argument here. The argument here is that MS is using
hidden
> > API's in it's applications that give it an advantage over it's
competitors.
> > Nobody has yet been able to prove this.
>
> That's because it's hard to prove something that doesn't exist by
> definition. An API is an explained interface into something. If
> Microsoft uses internal hooks with Win32 applications (ABI) is already
> proven by the Wine team.
Nobody has yet shown me any of this proof. They just point vaguely at the
wine website, which contains thousands of links all over the place. Care to
provide a specific link?
> > How would the SAMBA team find the Windows debug symbols (which is debug
> > information defining the API that an application can call) useful?
>
> They would contain helpful information about what needs to be called
> when. As it stands, they must reverse-engineer the protocol from
> listening to tcp dumps. Microsoft had no such problem in impelmenting
> NFS, yp or Kerberos. They half-heartely endorsed CIFS, but the lack
> of adoption has left it to decay (Windows 2000 is the first step away
> from it).
IIRC MS *INVENTED* CIFS and sent it through the RFC process (My memory could
be faulty on this one though).
------------------------------
From: Marty <[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: Sun, 14 May 2000 21:44:01 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name) writes:
> >
> > > On 8 May 2000 17:26:29 GMT,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >In Personal Computer World there was an interesting story about a
> > > >similar thing. When using Netscape on MS's web site, a certain page
> > > >would give a 404 error. However, when a pref was set to use an
> > > >IE-style User-Agent string, the same page came up perfectly.
> > > >Interesting...
> > >
> > > I've done a fair amount of WWW page development. IE is simply more
> > > forgiving with improperly syntaxed HTML than Netscape.
> >
> > Of course you know that a 404 doesn't come from the browser, right?
>
> It's pretty common to have content customized for a particular browser,
That goes against the entire founding priciples and purpose of the web.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 17:47:07 -0400
I have been programming for a long time, over 25 years, almost 20 years
professionally.
The brief fad we call micro computers, i.e. CPUs that, today, would not
even be used in many embedded applications. The Z-80, 8080, 8086(88)
were all so underpowered that so many short cuts had to be made. The
single tasking paradigms, etc. They have all affected how we develop
programs today.
Look at Windows. This is a prime example of an environment where micro
computer paradigms that have survived, not because they are better, but
it is what people have gotten used to.
Just to name one: drive letters.
Why does one need drive letters? The only reason they exist is because
DOS did not have a hierarchical file system until version 2.0. 2.0!!! do
you believe it?
There are so many more of these '70's quick and dirty hacks, why do we
continue to use them? Think about it. I'm sure you can come up with a
few yourself. If you ask me, UNIX is a more logical "modern" way of
designing programs.
--
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: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 22:05:21 GMT
Perry Pip wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 May 2000 10:05:44 -0700, Stephen S. Edwards II
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >It's true, that X has been battered and beaten around
> >very much, and now it is very stable under most conditions,
> >but Linux has not had the same go around, and it's quite
> >possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees.
>
> That's funny. I've been using Linux for six years, and I've *never*
> had X take a kernel down, i.e. I could always telnet to the
> system. And in the last couple of years, I haven't had any console
> lock ups either.
>
> >This
> >has happened to me several times, and no, it wasn't a
> >hardware problem.
>
> It's funny that the only people who claim that Linux crashes for them
> and NT doesn't are the Windows advocates on the newsgroups. Whereas
> the rest of the world, including the mainstream press seem to agree
> Linux is more stable.
>
> Perry
I will say I've never had Linux let me down in 6 years I've seriously
used it.
It's been a very dependable OS with the ability to survive some very
rigourous
testing. And in the security department is simply leaves Microsoft in
the dust.
I think most of these negative comments about Linux would not be posted
IF
the poster ever ran Linux. And in some cases, if the people who ran
Linux
knew what they were doing. Most mostly the comments come from people
who've
NEVER run LINUX.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 22:06:40 GMT
Perry Pip wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 May 2000 10:08:38 -0400, Evan DiBiase
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Now I'd like to read some about your background?
> >
> >Is it really relevant? I'm 16 years old, and have been using computers since
> >I was five. I've used almost every major distribution of Linux, BeOS,
> >FreeBSD, Windows 3.11, Windows 9x, Windows NT4, and Windows 2000. What more
> >do you want?
>
> Some real world experience, i.e. deploying systems in business,
> scientific, or engineering applications. Not that I mean to knock
> you. You're only 16, so someday you'll get some if you want and until
> that time you should continue to remain open minded as you
> are. However having a PC at home is not the same as implementing
> solutions in the real business world.
>
> Perry
I think what Perry is trying to tell you is to NOT bury yourself in
one OS. By the time you finish college, there most likely WON'T be
a Microsoft OS division anymore.
This is something to think about....
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 22:12:36 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > --
> > > .-----.
> > > |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> > > | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> > > | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> > > |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
> >
> >
> >
> > I did some checking on this group.
> >
> > See, they are writing AI under Microsoft products!
>
> And I see that you never answered any of my questions.
>
> Since you absolutely refused to post proof to back up
> your claims, I can only conclude that you are lying
> about nearly everything you said. Now, please give
> COMNA a rest. We already have enough village idiots
> posting from COLA, and we don't need another.
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
What questions have you asked Steve!
You just made some bullshit observations of your own.
To my knowledge you've not asked one question yet.
Charlie
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
From: Nyarlathotep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 14 May 2000 18:16:54 -0400
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Ghengis
> > Khan showed up with armored riders on horseback and nearly sacked
> > Rome.
>
> Ghengis Khan was born centuries after the fall of Rome.
Well Rome was sacked more than once. However Ghengis got no where
near Rome. The Mongols had secret treaties with Venice and they
would not cross their only European ally. I believe Ghengis
only got as far as Georgia and Russia with a scouting army
headed by his top general and son.Ogedi Khan had troops as far
as Hungary and Poland. China was much more important to the Mongols.
Microsoft headed by a brilliant, efficient and ruthless leader like
Ghengis Khan would mean an end to innovation everywhere, not just in
Redmond like now where they only know it as a buzzword.
--
>From the backwoods of High Spings, Florida.
John Midtgard
Cat: What? Am I the only sane one here? Why don't we drop the defensive
shields?
Kryten: A superlative suggestion, sir, with just two minor flaws. One: We
don't have any defensive shields, and Two: We don't have any defensive
shields. Now, I realise that, technically speaking, that's only one flaw,
but I thought that it was such a big one it was worth mentioning twice.
--Red Dwarf, Holoship
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
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: 14 May 2000 22:20:55 GMT
On Sun, 14 May 2000 14:06:39 GMT, Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8 May 2000 17:26:29 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >In Personal Computer World there was an interesting story about a
> >similar thing. When using Netscape on MS's web site, a certain page
> >would give a 404 error. However, when a pref was set to use an
> >IE-style User-Agent string, the same page came up perfectly.
> >Interesting...
> >
>
> I've done a fair amount of WWW page development.
And yet you still don't understand the issue, impressive. Note; it was
the exact same program (Netscape 4.x), just with a different UA string.
> IE is simply more
> forgiving with improperly syntaxed HTML than Netscape.
Which has absolutely zip to do with the issue.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: 14 May 2000 22:20:56 GMT
On Sun, 14 May 2000 00:28:04 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - People who want to leave the "church" are often put under severe
> pressure. There are cases of ex-members who have been terrorised for
> months and years after they left.
The "church" is perfectly willing to kill members who leave that have
information that could be harmful to them.
Scientology is evil, no two ways about it.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 22:28:56 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Darren Winsper would say:
>On Sun, 14 May 2000 00:28:04 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> - People who want to leave the "church" are often put under severe
>> pressure. There are cases of ex-members who have been terrorised for
>> months and years after they left.
>
>The "church" is perfectly willing to kill members who leave that have
>information that could be harmful to them.
>
>Scientology is evil, no two ways about it.
Now, now, don't say such things.
You probably don't actually have proof of this.
And if you _did_, saying such things in public certainly wouldn't reflect
well on "the church," and could thus get you, um, killed...
--
Rules of the Evil Overlord #42. "When I capture the hero, I will make
sure I also get his dog, monkey, ferret, or whatever sickeningly cute
little animal capable of untying ropes and filching keys happens to
follow him around." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: 14 May 2000 22:30:18 GMT
In article <8fmnvs$oj1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Todd Knarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In comp.os.linux.x <8fm5jt$l4k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> That's strange since it's been available under X for quite some time, through the
>freetype library; it's integrated with XFree 4. I did an experimental install and it
>worked flawlessly and the truetype fonts do look quite good, especially in netscape.
>Performance is quite good too, meaning that I can't tell the difference between
>bitmap and tt fonts rendering speed.
>
> Actually TrueType fonts under X aren't antialiased, at least not in the
> way Windows does it. The problem is that X defines it's font to be a
> monochrome bitmap.
>From the freetype.org homepage:
"Font smoothing, a.k.a. gray-scaling. Just like Win95, the renderer only smoothes the
parts of a glyph which need it (i.e., diagonals and curves). Actually, FreeType 2
produces better smoothed glyphs than Windows ! At any size."
"A full-featured and efficient TrueType bytecode interpreter. The engine is able to
produce excellent output at small point sizes. This component has been extremely
difficult to get right, due to the ambiguous and misleadings TrueType specifications.
However, we now match Windows and Mac qualities."
> To antialias right you need a greyscale pixmap. The
> problems are that a) most X apps can't handle pixmap font data and b) the
> data format for what the font server returns can't accomodate pixmap
> font data.
This is only a problem if the app renders its fonts itself, shouldn't be a problem if
X renders it for it... Most X apps is font neutral, AFAIK. Besides I really don't see
the problem with "font-smoothing/anti-aliasing" or no
"font-smoothing/anti-aliasing"... If i'm writing a report/paper I do it in LaTeX,
which produces far better results than any wysiwyg app can come up with...
> The challenge isn't extending the spec to allow for pixmap font data
> for new apps, that's easy. The challenge is to alter the existing specs
> so that old apps can benefit from antialiasing without being broken by
> changed formats. This is a just slightly more difficult endeavor.
> <evil grin> Much like making DirectX 7 add all it's capabilities without
> breaking binary compatibility with DirectX 1 apps and allowing them to
> take advantage of some of the new features.
>
>> If this and other newsgroups concerning X are to be judged by, there are a lot of
>people (incl. me) using X over a network regularly, where the client/server model
>excels... There's no better model. Thus your reasoning is only valid for you and the
>few people that reason just like you.
>
> Especially considering that Microsoft itself is moving towards the X model
> with Microsoft Terminal Server and their new 'services' concepts, where the
> application runs on a central system and only displays on the local PC.
Yeah, M$ innovates! :->
/Peter K
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: 14 May 2000 19:00:02 -0400
John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>OK lets return to the original question. Is it possible to hurt
>a Linux system through a mail bomb type of attachment to email?
It is possible to send a virus, worm, or Trojan horse to a Linux
system via e-mail, but the virus wouldn't automatically be executed
when the user tries to view the attachment (which is what made
ILOVEYOU so successful). The user would have to save the virus and
then run it, and even then, its ability to spread would be limited
by its inability to write to other installed programs unless the
user does everything as root.
I can't imagine a virus written in assembly language (the traditional
language of virii) working very well in the Unix environment. The
virus would have to be written in assembly language to be able to
infect ELF binaries, and it wouldn't be able to call any functions
from the libc, because there are several binary-incompatible versions
of libc currently in widespread use on Intel-based Linux systems.
A virus might be written in a shell language. Such a virus would be
able to infect an unprivileged user's personal scripts even if it
couldn't infect system scripts, and use Unix tools to spread across
systems (making the virus a worm). For example, a worm might be able
to use grep to compile a list of e-mail addresses from all readable
text files, and sendmail to retransmit itself (like ILOVEYOU). The
worm would also be able to spread to non-Linux platforms like
Solaris. The infected scripts would take a lot longer to execute
than the originals, though the overhead can be hidden by running
the virus portion of the script in the background. The script would
exit as usual while the worm is still compiling the list of e-mail
addresses. Trying to view the worm from within an e-mail program
would result in its source code being displayed. The normal user
would be most likely to simply delete this worm without even knowing
what it is, rather than save it and run it. And there's a chance
that if the user did save it, the e-mail program would save it as
a non-executable, which means that the user would have to manually
set the executable bit, otherwise KDE would treat it as a text file.
>Is it possible for an ordinary user (not root) to destroy the
>system from a terminal?
There is one way that an unprivileged Linux user can bring down
the system from afar without having to become root. If the user
has access to an unrestricted shell, the user can run the following
script:
#!/bin/sh
while true; do
# Spawn processes at a geometric rate.
$0 &
$0 &
$0 &
$0 &
$0 &
done
exit
# End of script
The system affected by this script would run fine once rebooted,
and there may be a security feature in newer versions of Linux
that prevent this from working. To do any more permanent damage,
the user must find a way to become root.
>A part of the problem here is that Linux source code is available
>to anyone. If you have a plan of the castle it is easier to
>attack it. But I would like to see/hear about a successful attack
>strategy through terminal access, ftp, mail, whatever that does
>not involve prior knowledge of the root password. (Attacks that
>ferret out the root password through some strategy are valid.)
Such strategies don't stay successful for long, _because_ the Linux
source code is available to anyone. So, when security holes get
discovered, they get fixed before you and I get a chance to learn
how to exploit them.
The only strategy that has any chance of lasting is to try to guess
passwords. Sysadmins and security experts can say "Use passwords that
look like line noise" as much as they want, but the ordinary user
always has ignored this advice, and this behavior will continue for
years to come. As Linux becomes more widely adopted, you can expect
more and more systems with accounts whose passwords are the same as
the account name, or as similar to it as /usr/bin/passwd will allow,
and you can bet that more users _will_ be doing everything as root
in the future, and they will allow remote root logins as well, if
they can figure out how or get somebody to tell them how. The biggest
security hole that will ever affect Linux systems is user stupidity.
--
Guns don't kill people, cops do!
------------------------------
From: "ne..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: System uptime message.
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 23:01:09 GMT
On May 12, 2000 at 12:00, John Culleton eloquently wrote:
>Some messages on this newsgroup and others have the tagline:
>
>"This Linux system up for xxx days yyy hours zzz minutes"
>
>I was just wondering if someone who does this would share the
>technique they use to pick up this data and put in in their
>message.
I use pine as my newsreader and it has the ability to
run a script as a .sig. So everytime I want to post,
it sets up a fresh .sig.
--
Registered Linux User # 125653
Q: What do you call the scratches that you get when a female
sheep bites you?
A: Ewe nicks.
6:59pm up 4 days, 30 min, 7 users, load average: 0.03, 0.05, 0.04
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
