Linux-Advocacy Digest #514, Volume #26 Mon, 15 May 00 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Things Linux can't do! (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Microsoft must die! (Full Name)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Craig Kelley)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux lacks (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Karen Mansbridge-Wood")
Re: Motif Open Source? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Slashdot is down (Craig Kelley)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Matthias Warkus)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Matthias Warkus)
Re: You people are full of shit.... (Martijn Bruns)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for MS) ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (Full Name)
Re: You people are full of shit.... (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: You people are full of shit.... (Thomas Phipps)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 16:09:31 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some advocacy stuff </SNIP>
/me butting in...
> You haven't been alive very long.
Is it a bad thing ? :)
> BTW, did I mention I actually started my computer career before you were
> born.
Excuse, but what is your point here ?
Why don't you just let your arguments make your points for you, instead just
saying how old and experienced you supposedly are ?
> Charlie
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Subject: Re: Microsoft must die!
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 14:09:18 GMT
On Sat, 13 May 2000 20:00:01 GMT, "As If" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The only times I ever have gotten the blue screen are:
>
>a) overclocking my box and running too hot - pushing the hardware where it's
>not supposed to go
>
>b) using crappy 3rd party hardware drivers.
>
>Microsoft isn't to blame for 99% of the NT blue screens out there; it's the
>junk that passes for OEM hardware drivers.
>
You are exactly right.
The PC sitting in front of me here at home was the cheapest clone I
could find. It's almost a year since I installed NT 4 Server and it
has never blue-screened. For most of its life it has had only 32 MB
Ram (it now has 48).
I will admit it does get into the odd tangle when I have Borland C
Builder, Borland C 5.01 and several IE 5 windows open at the same time
(not to mention the odd administrative tool). It would get to the
stage where IE5 refused to open any more menus. Closing IE5 and
starting it again always fixed the problem.
But it has never blue-screened or crashed.
I have no idea what the people in this group are babbling about.
Given solid hardware, anybody who cannot run a reliable NT system
should get out of computing and go and pick fruit for a living.
I'd be embarrassed to admit in a public forum that I couldn't reliably
maintain an NT system. Yet the boffins participating in this group
deem it necessary to shout it to the world.
One the more frequent fools even goes on to advertise he supports NT
in his signature. Yeah right, I really want him working with my IT
staff.
------------------------------
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: 15 May 2000 08:06:46 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Look at all the _calls in Linux before you make such a claim.
> > >
> > > Every OS has undocumented APIs; It's just that you can see Linux'
> > > because of open source.
> >
> > The problem is not with undocumented internal APIs that different parts
> > of the OS itself can access. The problem is with "external" APIs that
> > are documented only for other product groups within Microsoft.
>
> Something that nobody has yet been able to provide any proof of in any
> software MS has written in the last 5 years.
Look at the timeline. It's not a simple matter of documenting the
API, it's that Microsoft's application developers know about the new
OS hooks *before* anyone else. An example I keep thowing out: they
bundle IIS with NT, bump up the version number and add in hooks for
other Microsoft applications. Then, if they feel like it, they
document those hooks for other application developers *after* their
own solutions are done. Bill has said many times that they couldn't
have built their OS without the application teams' feedback; this
implies that the Microsoft application developers have a huge
advantage whenever Microsoft wishes to compete in a specific area.
This wouldn't be a problem if Microsoft actually had to compete at the
desktop level. This has been documented several times. Look at the
infamous "halloween documents" to see a Microsoft VP explaining these
tactics.
Splitting up Microsoft would solve this problem (and probably make
Windows and Office even *better*). Ballmer and Gates should just
split the company up now before the DOJ gets a chance to do something
really stupid (like taking the Network code out of the Windows
developers hands or something similiar...). Nobody wants to go back
to the days of buying Trumpet Winsock, but you never know what Reno
will do...
> > For instance, if a GUI OS were to provide an API that sped up window
> > redraws, but the API were available only to applications written by the
> > same company, while competing companies had to roll their own -- and
> > suffer performance penalties -- that would be an unfair advantage of the
> > type MS is accused of creating.
>
> If. Again, no facts.
You're blind if you can't see it. They're now using the DMCA to halt
any 3rd-party production of MS Kerberos. Again, we like Windows on
our desktops, but Microsoft wants to lock us into NT Server as well.
They use secret interfaces (both network and system) to lock people
into the continued use of Windows.
If we want to go with Apple products, we'd have to double our hardware
budget and pay a hefty entrance fee. If we went with BeOS or Linux
(and even the Mac), we'd have to re-educate everyone and give up all
our specialty apps (the dearth of Facts and Comparisons would nail
that coffin right up). WE HAVE NO CHOICE. Microsoft knows that and
perpetuates the situation, not with innovation or superb customer
service, but with secrets.
The sad thing is, Microsoft makes good products which could compete on
merit alone, if they'd only let them.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 15 May 2000 08:13:51 -0600
"Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is the reasons Windows Millenium edition get rid of dos. No more
> autoexec.bat, config.sys, etc... We can't "restart in msdos". The dos is now
> an emulator.
> It's a good thing that dos doesn't exist anymore.
> WinME beta3.
Where have I heard that line before?
Ahh yes, in 1994, right before Windows 4.0 came out.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 15 May 2000 08:18:44 -0600
"David Cueto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First of all, thanks for your reasonable answer.
>
> > Actually Windows NT only journals meta data, not actual data. The XFS or
> > Reiser FS will be a true journalling fs.
>
> "Will be" is not equal to "is" ...
Reiser FS is stable. It doesn't come with Linux, but some
distributions (like SuSE) include it right now.
> > I'm not sure what you are saying here.
>
> That NFS serving implementation is very bad.
As of 2.2.15? Do explain.
> > I am sitting off a DSL system now, what's your point?
>
> Very few of them well supported.
Huh? DSL is just a bridge or router going through ethernet.
> > Because the test was designed to exploit the specifics of NT, it was not
> > a generalized test. There needs to be an independent body to create a
> > benchmark that is "representative" of particular server requirements.
> > Not a benchmark designed around the NT kernel.
>
> I thought that there were Linux people tweaking kernel and daemons
> to run well, am I wrong ? Is not httpd kernel daemon an answer to those
> tests, that implicitly says that GNU/Linux fell back NT ?
khttpd only does static content. The Mindcraft tests were designed
around NT's superb threads-based IO management and Linux' single
spinlock in 2.2.
> > Again, what do you mean?
>
> I mean that there is no good open source browser, and Netscape, the
> best (at least the most featured one) around is pretty bad and freezes by
> far more than IE 5 does.
Mozilla isn't done yet, but that's coming right along. I use M15 all
the time now.
> > There are even more than this. Applix, StarOffice, Netscape, are all OK.
>
> Non one of those is open source.
Microsoft Office isn't open source either.
[snip]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: "Karen Mansbridge-Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Karen Mansbridge-Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 14:18:46 GMT
On Mon, 15 May 2000 06:36:41 -0400, Joseph wrote:
>Like you, MS decided to take an extreme position and refuse to ceed
>common facts. Split them into two.
Make it three. I can't believe there are people willing to
argue about MS' behavior. There simply isn't any question about
it. They were convinced because they were guilty as hell. They
even tried to falsify evidence at the trial! Of course they
argue that technology would be negatively impacted if they were
broken up. *They* would be negatively impacted. Technology
would do just fine if they didn't even exist.
Karen
___________________________________________________________
IBM *does* listen to its customers. If you support OS/2, tell them:
http://www.ibm.com/scripts/email-lvg.pl
http://www2.software.ibm.com/os/warp/webreqs.nsf/page1?OpenForm
___________________________________________________________
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Motif Open Source?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 15 May 2000 08:20:09 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne) writes:
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Donn Miller would say:
> >Donn Miller wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/intro.html
> >
> >All the ftp sites listed were overloaded. Damn, I was just about to
> >make the move from Motif to Qt or Gtk. Who knows where this will
> >lead, though... now that it is Open Source.
>
> One problem is that, despite the manifold use of the word "Open,"
> OpenMotif is _NOT_ Open Source according to the OSD.
>
> That's not me "license-lawyering;" the FAQ at the Open Group
> site states this...
It's only open source while being used on a free operating system
(Linux, *BSD, etc.).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Slashdot is down
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 15 May 2000 08:21:34 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff Lane) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Microsoft doesn't have to present massivly dynamic content
> > either, it's mostly a reference site.
>
> You have to wonder why they use ASP for almost every page then don't you :-)
I've seen MCSEs name pages .asp when all they contained was HTML.
I'm sure that Microsoft has dynamic content on every page (they'd be
stupid not to, it makes managing a site easy); but discussion sites
like /. *only* have dynamic content.
--
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] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 16:08:15 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 14 May 2000 20:26:34 GMT...
...and Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2000 21:29:00 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Don't forget Germany's got laws against concentration of press market
> >share in the hands of media moguls. I don't know whether the US have.
>
> We used to, but not anymore as far as I can tell.
Reagan abolished a lot of freedom of the press legislation, probably
that too...
mawa
--
THE THREE MANTRAS OF META-OPTIMISM (by mawa)
I. Everything's gonna be all right.
II. I'll always believe that everything's gonna be all right.
III. I'll always be able to believe everything's gonna be all right.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 16:26:52 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 14 May 2000 23:30:28 GMT...
...and Bastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What about the A20 Gate? Does it still exist out there (in Intels new
> Itanium 64bit)?
Wasn't the A20 gate just an April Fools' Joke of c't magazine anyway?
mawa
--
Got ideas for icons for the Gnome project?
Find status reports on http://news.gnome.org
See existing icons on http://gnome-icons.sourceforge.net
Submit suggestions and artwork to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You people are full of shit....
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 16:29:11 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef:
>
> I use Windows 98se everyday running a graphics workshop business and I
> never get BSOD's nor do I seem to have all of the troubles you Linux
> nuts seem to have.
Here you go:
file:/c:/aux/aux
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 15 May 2000 14:18:57 GMT
In article <8fg2tu$tj6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can pipe an attachment to any app from Pine. I'd be astounded if other
> mailers don't support that.
>
> This is basically the Unix equivalent of what Outlook is doing.
Not exactly, since on Unix (with 99.9% of mailers) you have to
explicitly choose what application it is going to unless its MIME type
happens to be on a carefully vetted list. If some message popped out
of the blue asking me to pipe an attachment to /usr/bin/perl, I'd have
the old alarm bells ringing in my head in no time flat (unless they
got drowned out by the "yet more spam; delete without reading" bells.)
Only an idiot would put Perl into a mailcap, and the documentation
warns specifically against doing this sort of thing.
The difference isn't whether (semi-)automatic passing off of
attachments can happen. The difference is in whether unsafe content
is ever executed insecurely when a mailer passes off an attachment.
On Unix, the answer is "hardly ever" and on Windows, the answer is
"usually, though maybe with some dialog that gets ignored[*]". See?
Donal.
[* 'Doze overuses dialogs (this is well known in the GUI design
community) and so they have lost their warning effect; users just
hit the OK button without thinking carefully. Whether or not they
should, this is what happens. ]
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for MS)
Date: 15 May 2000 14:32:21 GMT
Angela Kahealani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: I advocate that you take your personal flames to a flames newsgroup,
: and stop crosposting between newsgroups, especially take
: anything which has to do with MicroSoft out of
: comp.unix.advocacy, which is where I'm reading your flames and
: off topic postings. How you appear to me:
: <URL:http://www.kahealani.com/kahealani/imgs/clipart/headup.jpg>
A UNIX advocate posting from a Macintosh? How interesting.
Either ignore the post, or .kill. But please, no whining.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 14:38:59 GMT
I have no idea how anyone could compare Linux to Solaris.
Just today I was asked to post process some output files from a Unix
stats package. For the hell of it I hopped onto the Mandrake Linux
box rather than using a Solaris 7 machine.
First thing I noticed was that my QvtTerm kept hanging when I typed
ctrl-c to stop a job while it was dumping text to the screen. Not
every time mind you, just enough to be annoying. I had to keep
killing sessions and logging in again.
I started using awk. Things were going well. Thought I'd try sed. I
needed to pattern match a return character. Tried ctrl-v and hitting
the return key.
Did not work!!
Simply gave the usual '>' continuation prompt as though I'd simply hit
the return by itself. Then spent half an hour trying to work out how
to pattern match a return without using ctrl-v.
At this point I trashed the ever-hanging Linux sessions and switched
to an Ultra 10. No hangs and ctrl-v worked as usual. Both were bash
sessions.
Next time you think about using a Linux box try sitting on a pineapple
instead. You'll end up with the same expression on your face and you
won't waste as much time.
Linux - you get what you pay for.
On Wed, 10 May 2000 14:29:07 GMT, "Lord Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Technically Solaris is more advanced especially in
>features for working on very large systems -- ones with dozens of processors
>or even clusters of ones with dozens of processors. It "scales" much better
>meaning that as processors are added performance goes up. This is never
>linear, i.e., 8 processors won't give you twice the performance of 4, but for
>most operating systems, especially NT but now, anyway, still Linux, you get
>zero additional performance after 4 for NT and probably the same for Linux.
>Solaris is also much much more stable. Big Solaris systems attain what's
>known as "5 9's" -- 99.999% uptime. That comes out to 5 minutes of downtime
>per year.
>
>Still Linux has some nice advantages of its own. It has lots of driver
>support. It easily outshines Solaris in support for the types of devices
>you find on PC's -- the myriad of boards. Someone somewhere has built a
>driver for just about anything you might have. It also has desktop tools and
>utilities. Solaris has become mainly a server operating system so people
>aren't building office sorts of products for Solaris. There is some activity
>in products like this for Linux, but still nothing like what's available for
>Windows, not even 1%. Solaris is free for individual use but it is not free
>for commercial use which Linux is.
>
>However the downside is that there is no market value for anyone programming
>in Linux or anyone administrating networks in Linux ( Its the same problem with
>BeOS). However there is a great market value for Solaris OS platform
>programming and administration fields. Solaris programmers are more sucessful
>programmers than linux programers, their pay salery is far greater.
>
>
>This info is %100 right!
>
>--
>Williams
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 16:47:05 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: You people are full of shit....
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > I use Windows 98se everyday running a graphics workshop business and I
> > never get BSOD's nor do I seem to have all of the troubles you Linux
> > nuts seem to have.
> >
> I guess just turning Windows on and letting it act as a wall paper
> does not cause it to crash.
> --
> Da Katt
> [This space for rent]
You will be surprised... lol
--
==============
The following signature was created automatically under Linux:
.
If you live in a country run by committee, be on the committee.
-- Graham Summer
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 15 May 2000 14:54:34 GMT
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > I guess I can conclude that you're lying about being
: > a programmer too. You've been programming for 20 years,
: > and you've never seen X (a priveleged root process) lock
: > up a system?
: In the last ten years, ive seen this happen ONE time. ONCE.
I have experienced this behavior many times under Linux.
I've also seen it happen occasionally under SCO UNIX, where
the box gets locked up tight. I've also had X lock up under
FreeBSD once.
: And it was under an experimental mach-kernel based linux.
: Ive never, ever seen it happen under ANY unix at ALL. And
: ive seen alot of UNIX.
I have seen a lot of BSODs in my time, and in every single
instance, I was able to track them back to one of two
things:
1.) Faulty, or chintzy hardware.
2.) Improperly written drivers.
The above factors are merely a result of clueless
administrators, who have spent too much time under
UNIX, and who have tried to deploy WindowsNT in the
same manner, which you cannot.
I'm sure that there are many problems under the various
UNIX flavors that could also be tracked to these two
reasons as well. My problem with people like you is
that you preach about UNIX as if it's perfect, and has
absolutely no flaws whatsoever.
: I'm not saying that it has never happened. I'm saying that
: you're twit for insinuating that it happens anywhere NEAR
: one one hundredth of one percent of the time that it happens
: to windows. Even W2K.
I see. So, if I were to take your position from a
Windows advocate standpoint, then I can simply assume
that you are inept, because you cannot seemingly get
WindowsNT to perform to way you ideally would have it
do so.
[SNIP]
: > 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.
: Ive never had this happen to me, not once. Sure, a long time
: ago I had to ssh into my machine from the one next to it now
: and then to fix a locked X, but the OS itself certianly didnt
: die.
In my cases that I explained, I was unable to get telnet
to connect to the offending machines that were running
Linux.
: > This
: > has happened to me several times, and no, it wasn't a
: > hardware problem.
: Sounds like its an intelligence problem.
*yawn* Been there, done that. You're not
saying anything that any other closed-minded
UNIX looney hasn't already.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Phipps)
Subject: Re: You people are full of shit....
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 14:58:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> I use Windows 98se everyday running a graphics workshop business and I
>> never get BSOD's nor do I seem to have all of the troubles you Linux
>> nuts seem to have.
>>
> I guess just turning Windows on and letting it act as a wall paper
>does not cause it to crash.
it could if they run active desktop ... {first thing to disable if something
doesn't work in a win98 enviro}
then theres the pooint when the screen saver shows up ... it might call a api
slightly wrong ... and poof ... there goes the GPF
then ... if someone got you to run netbus ... and you had auto-dial
enabled ... your computer dials out to the world {I know this happens I
did it to a "friend" that was kicking me out of his house} ... then your on the
net with this gapping hole in secrity .. {and sence netbus caused the computer
to dial it most likely sent a e-mail stating your ip ...} ...
man ... just letting a windoze box sitting is dangerous
WhyteWolf
>--
>Da Katt
>[This space for rent]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
