Linux-Advocacy Digest #161, Volume #27 Sun, 18 Jun 00 02:13:14 EDT
Contents:
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity... ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day ("Rich C")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Alan Baker)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Processing data is bad! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:36:23 -0400
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:55:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:35:00 -0700, Stephen Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <8ic211$htb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>
>>>There are things that I have seen mentioned in these three news groups by
>>>the supporters of the Microsoft Windows environment that I can not reconcile
>>>with what I have experienced in reality, I would like to discuss one of
>>>them. Please note that I did not say the Windows operating system, since
>>>there is no such beast. Windows, in all of its incarnations is nothing more
>>>than a graphical environment that runs on an actual operating system.
>
> This isn't quite correct.
>
> Unix is an actual operating system and X is a graphical shell
> that runs on top of it. However WinDOS is a different sort of
> beast. The "whole OS" does not exist in DOS. Most of the OS is
> embedded into the GUI shell making the boundary between system
> components murky and DOS itself crippled.
>
> They aren't quite comparable... Unix/X vs. DOS/Win.
The NT 3.x is quite similar in design to Linux/XF4 if you look at it.
Wonder how long it takes them to move X into the kernel to improve
speed? ;-)
>[deletia]
>>>Windows 1.x software no longer ran under Windows 3.x. Most Windows 2.x
>>>software still ran under Windows 3.x (with warning to upgrade the software),
>>
>>
>>That's because real-mode never made its way into Windows v3.x.
>>In order for Microsoft to move forward, they had to leave some
>
> It doesn't matter what the excuse is. The 386 was out by then,
> they had more than enough information to plan ahead with. They
> just chose not to.
The 386 was out, but the target platform was the 286. Windows 3.x
just introduced 386 enhanced mode which provided most of the things
standard mode did with a few extra bonuses.
>>things behind... real-mode applications were one of those things.
>>By your logic, we should all be driving cars that still have
>>oil lamps on them.
>
> ...not quite. Computers much like cars are using the same
> core technology they have been from nearly their inception.
> Windows is a bit younger than DOS and can't use the same
> excuses for it's design myopia.
Windows ran on DOS. The design of Windows was inseparable from DOS.
What are you talking about?
>>Would you suggest that every software company simply cater to
>>every single old-timer out there who doesn't want to upgrade
>>their ancient OS/application installations? That makes no
>
> No, they should design for the future more than the have
> been (in the case of Microsoft). Software doesn't wear
> out and OS vendors shouldn't be essentially sabotaging the
> capital investments of both companies and home users.
So Linux should have a standard binary driver API, or do different
rules apply to different systems?
>>sense at all. Progress is the nature of things, and it's
>>necessary if a business of any kind wishes to survive.
>>
>>>by Windows 3.1, most of them were non-functional, by Windows 95, none that I
>>>have tried would run at all anymore. Only some of the Windows 3.x software
>>>would run on Windows 95, i can only imagine what would happen if I tried to
>>>run them on Windows 98 or 2000.
>>
>>
>>Well, it's silly to think that you should be able to run every
>>single piece of legacy software out there on each progressive
>>new version of an OS. If your software is that old, then it's
>
> It depends on your OS vendor. Some vendors are simply
> better than others when it comes to this sort of thing.
Yep. MS is about the best at the moment for BINARY compatibility.
Try loading a 2.0 kernel module on a 2.4 kernel. Boom.
>>simply time for you to upgrade it. That is the nature of
>>computing. If you don't keep up, you simply get left behind.
>
> That is a foolishly restricted notion that sounds suspicously
> devoid of any awareness of the theoretical aspects of computing.
But surprisingly accurate about the reality that theorists so often
ignore.
> Win32 is not "standardized" across all 'platforms'. One glaring
> example would be threads.
How so? Threads behave pretty much the same. Now threads in Unix...
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:24:33 -0400
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How many lambs does it take to feed an army of penguins?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Whatever. The fact remains that it still has far more market share
> than Linux...
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:19:11 -0400
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity...
Gary Hallock wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Does Windows even come with a compiler?
> >
>
> Good point. To be fair, if the compiler that comes with Linux is going to be
> used for performance comparisons, then it should be compared against the
> compiler that comes with Windows. That would be Mr. Goodwins brain. He will
> have to manually generate machine code.
The compiler? You only got one?
Colin Day
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:34:00 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/11/2000 at 02:09 PM,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Träger) said:
>
> > I couldn't find the "US" definition of "liberal" in any english
> > dictionary - looks like the Americans don't speak English. Anyway,
> > Germer is not a liberal, but his definition of liberal is. The word
> > defined before liberal also fits his - libel: a written ...
> > representation that gives an unjustly unfavorable impression of a ...
> > thing.
>
> Then you didn't look at a dictionary of political terms. And your posts
URL?
> are useful only to demonstrate the total inanity of brains damaged by long
> exposure to cold weather. The US and Great Britain made a mistake or two
> in WW II. We didn't let the Germans keep Denmark or France. The world
> would be a better place had we done that.
Hmm. If I were dansk and had your intelectual capacity, maybe I would be
insulted. I am german *and* have an IQ above room temperature however,
so...
Lars T.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:33:15 -0400
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
"Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <394853fe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rich C"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8i8drh$oet$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > What, 20 seconds vs 10 ? Hardly important for an operation that
> > > woulnd't
> > be
> > > *that* common in interactive use.
> > >
> > > I certainly hope you're using all the appropriate keyboards
> > > shortcuts instead of going Start -> Find -> Files ?
> >
> > Hmmm.....keyboard "shortcuts".........that should tell you something
> > right there. Why do you think they are called "shortcuts"? If GUIs
> > were so great, why should there even BE keyboard shortcuts? True,
> > they are more intuitive than command lines (UNLESS the command help
> > is properly included) and they are great for drawing programs, but
> > certainly slower to a trained individual. So when you are learning a
> > new OS or program, you use the GUI, then when you become more
> > proficient, you "graduate" to the keyboard shortcuts, then to the
> > command line. (At least that's the way I did it.)
>
> Following your logic, "Hmmm....."GUIs........that should tell you
> something right there.... If CLI's are so great, whe should there even
> BE a GUI?" Yet 99&44/100ths% of desktops have 'em. I wonder why?
>
As I said, GUIs are more intuitive, but less efficient. That's why there are
keyboard commands _in addition_ to the graphical (point/click) commands.
Also GUIs are far superior when graphical programs are being used, such as
CAD, graphics manipulation, and other visual programs.
The thread is discussing the _efficiency_ of the GUI vs. the command line,
and Mr. Smith was asking if the graphical commands (clicking of buttons and
so forth) were being augmented with keyboard shortcuts, which is subverting
the idea of using a GUI. Mr. Smith obviously realized that using keyboard
commands would be faster and more efficient.
So, following MY logic, the GUI has its uses, but for experienced users, and
for certain applications, the really useful GUI also incorporates certain
features of a CLI. Once these commands are learned, the GUI sometimes gets
in the way.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
> --
> Jim Naylor
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:48:49 -0400
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
"Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3az25.3816$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> /me screams and clutches at eyes...
>
> I had no idea it was _this_ bad... I just assumed it would do the
> semi-sensible thing and have C, D, E, etc as partitions 1, 2, 3 on
> IDE0/Master, then F, G, H as 1, 2, 3 on 0/Slave, and then follow in a
> logical manner with 1/Master and 1/Slave. Silly me... :)
>
> I'm not even going to ask about SCSI, Firewire, Zip/Jazz or the other
> multitude of storage formats... ;)
>
The rules are simple, Primaries first no matter what, extended partition
and then removable media drives, excluding Floppies. What so hard about
that??? My real question is why would anyone need more that ONE Primary
partition, other than for Dual booting? Which 95%+ of users never do...
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:28:03 -0400
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Josiah Fizer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Josiah Fizer
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Alan Baker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Josiah Fizer
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Pascal Haakmat wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [snip]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >There may be some
>> >> >> >technical reasons why a command line might be more powerful, but
>> >> >> >that's
>> >> >> >not
>> >> >> >really why we use them. We don't use command lines because
>> >> >> >they're
>> >> >> >better,
>> >> >> >and certainly not because somebody forced us. We actually use
>> >> >> >them
>> >> >> >because
>> >> >> >we like them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hurrah!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [snip]
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Speek for your self, I would rather use a GUI as I'm a lazy bastard.
>> >> >However
>> >> >there is not now nor will there ever be a GUI way to do 'ping
>> >> >131.161.50.1
>> >> >|
>> >> >grep "is alive"' etc.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Oh ye of such limited imagination. <g>
>> >>
>> >> I would be very careful before I'd use such absolute terms regarding
>> >> how
>> >> computers might be made to work in the future.
>> >>
>> >
>> >So tell me o' enlightened one. What GUI concept allows for multi level
>> >piping?
>>
>> I don't know, but I _do_ know that before there was a GUI people like
>> you were convinced that nothing could improve _any_ aspect of computing
>> with a CLI. Even after the Mac came out, people like you were telling
>> everyone how GUIs were for wimps, etc.
>>
>> All I'm saying is that making broad statements about what can or can't
>> be done with a computer is a pretty silly exercise given the history of
>> them to this point.
>>
>
>"People like me"? Ah I see, so you can look deep into my soul and know
>what it is
>I like and want with out me giveing voice to my desire. I guess you would
>never
>have thought I could like BOTH the GUI and the CLI.
It has nothing to do with like or dislike. It has everything to do with
lack of vision.
I didn't say people _such as_ you. I said _like_ you. That explicitly
excludes you from the group.
They are like you in that they were so sure they understood what was
possible and so they "knew" nothing better could come along.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >The only thing I can think of is multi layered dragging of objects,
>> >each
>> >of which
>> >carry over the properties of the previous objects. However that would
>> >still be way
>> >more complex then 'command' | 'grep' | 'second command'. Bottom line is
>> >that
>> >clicking buttons and dragging stuff is slower. Here, I'll give you an
>> >easy
>> >one.
>> >"rm -R *.tmp" how long would that take to do in a GUI?
>>
>> How about a text entry box at the top of the window which lets you type
>> in *.tmp followed by the keyboard shortcut for delete? How about an
>> option to sort by filename in reverse order (the filename in reverse
>> that is) so that the window sorts "*.tmp" as "pmt.*" then clicking on
>> the first and shift-clicking on the last?
>>
>> That's two right off the cuff.
>>
>
>The first one is a command line interface in a window. The second would
>not be
>faster then a command line.
Nope. The first is a box for defining a filter for a window. I lifted
the idea straight from MT-Newswatcher 3.0 which has such a box at the
top of its Full Group list windows.
In the second, for the sake of argument:
Control-click (or right-click) file column, select "Sort names
backwards" or maybe "Sort by extension" (Of course on the Mac, since we
use file type and creator instead of filename extensions, we can just
explicitly sort on the "Kind" column).
Click first.
Shift-click last.
Delete.
Or how about:
Right-click (or control-click; trying to be platform-neutral here <G>)
and select something like "Select all of this type" from contextual
menu. This one's so nice, I should almost learn Mac coding again to
write it. Although I could probably do it with AppleScript and a CMM
(Contextual Menu Manager) plug-in that let's you run Applescripts. ;-)
But my point is that to just declare that the GUI will _never_ be able
to do this or that is just foolish. Computers are still changing far too
much to make such definitive statements of what they're capabilities are
or are not.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 11:46:23 -0400
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Fuzzy streaks says it all.
>
> Crappy jagged fonts is par for the Linux course.
A crappy font is a crappy FONT, idiot.
Says nothing about what's displaying it, nimrod.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 11:54:48 -0400
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Very, very funny...
>
> I'm saving this one!!!
Not realizing that the jokes on him...
>
> simon
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:05:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> >
> >>So where are all of these folks?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:56:17 -0400
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Remember the product itself still works - you can still run that old
> Windows 1.x software on the Windows 1.x machine you still have. Just
> don't expect it to run on a different machine. You never expect that
> of your consumer appliances. Why should software be different?
I have said this elsewhere in the thread but based on you comment, it seems
to be appripriate here as well.
One thing I thought some one would point out that it is still possible to
run old Windows software on a copy of Windows that was current when the
software was written. Of course this is in most cases legaly impossible,
since back when we upgraded from the old Dos or Windows, we lost the legal
right to run the prior verion . Unless we performed the upgrade by
purchasing a retail version instead of an upgrade version. Or we had
additional lincensed copies of the prior version that were not also
upgraded.
Now if Microsoft would release Windows 1.x and Windows 2.x and maybe some
older versions of Dos as well, as freeware it would help to make some amends
for their past planned obsolences. That would not hurt the sales of their
current product line and it would help them in the good will department and
it would cost them nothing or next to nothing. Today's harware could
require a few patches, like software timing loops, but the small effort that
they would have to invest in that would also help them in the good will
department. In the long run effort like that might make it possible for
them to be able to compete openly and fairly in the market place and still
keep their market share.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 03:18:10 -0400
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:aFD25.5364$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8icqq7$3qo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8i74ka$64o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The Windows/Dos method grew out of the method that was used on CP/M
> > > and other 8-bit OS's. Dos 1.x being a clone of CP/M was stuck with
> > > that method. Then starting with Dos 2.x , Dos started to try to be
> > > more like unix, with the introduction of some unix like features.
> > > However, the old CP/M disk/volume naming remained.
> >
> > Though in MSDOS 3.3 (IIRC; it's been a long time) you could do things
> > that worked suspiciously like mounting, creating both virtual volumes
> > and making volumes appear to be embedded in others. I forget in which
> > version MS took this out of DOS, but it was really annoying as I had
> > to rearchitecture a number of my own batch files to take account of
> > this... :^(
> >
> I think you mean the 'JOIN' command is the command your refering too. Also
> ASSIGN was another commad to redirect outputs. It worked alot like
> mounting, for what I have read. The problem is most Users could screw
up
> the paths quite easily. Unix/Linux the admin of the system can change
the
> mount points, with DOS anybody could can the 'mount' point.
> JOIN command was introduced in DOS 3.1 and removed before DOS 6.0. The
> reason was it was deemed to be to dangerous. I do agree it was a good
> command, if you know what your doing.
> Quite a few commands were removed in DOS 6.0, including Assing, Edlin,
> Link and Graptabl.
Very close. Not bad really.
Ok there were three utilities that performed these kinds of tasks in Dos.
They were ASSIGN, JOIN, and SUBST.
ASSIGN was included with dos since version 1.0, is was part of the
inheritence from CP/M. It was used to swap the names of two disk drive.
That way programs that had to run from the A: drive could run in the B:
drive thinking they were in A:--and the the other way arround because A:
became B: and B: became A:
JOIN would connect a drive as a drietory in another drive. In some versions
of Dos the drive would still be visible in others it would not be.
SUBST was the opposite of JOIN, it would make a driectory tree appear as a
sepperate drive.
The reason for removing those three utilities had more to do with pride and
Microsoft demonstrators, getting caught with their pants down.
There was an incident at a show and those utilities became varpor as a
result.
You see much of the network redirector was based on the trickes that made
these JOIN and SUBST programs work. As a result, a drive created by SUBST
appeared as a network drive. Windows File Manager would use the net drive
icon. During a demo at the show they were showing the speed of the Lan
Manager version something. Problem was that the net drive were not comming
across the network they were SUBST drives instead. Then some one noticed
that the coax tee was not connected to the NIC. And it all blew up.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 11:56:20 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
No, I admit I have not used utility #zxY.MnUi999 for Linsux...
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:43:24 -0400, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> You are right I haven't.
>
>So you admit you don't have a clue.
>
>Gary
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:29:23 -0400
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8i8qt9$apb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8i6f91$f4a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Drestin Black wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > p.s., it is impossible for an operating system _alone_ to be C2
> >> > certified.
> >> >> > It is ALWAYS a complete system that's evaluated and certified. NT
> > enjoys
> >> >> > another advantage in that it's C2 certification can be achived
> > through
> >> >> > software alone, not requiring any special hardware.
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't sentences one and two contradict each other Drestin?
> >>
> >> > no, I said not requiring any special hardware. What I mean is what
I've
> >> > written. NT enjoys the fact that it can gain certification on most
any
> >> > readily available hardware.
> >>
> >> Not laptops. Care to tell the class why, dresden? Go ahead, flaunt
> >> your incredible security knowledge.
>
> > Let me just remind the class of this paragraph from the TPEP FAQ:
> > "A system does not require custom hardware to be successfully evaluated
> > against the Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC) or
Common
> > Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation (CCITSE). "
>
> Youve misunderstood what that paragraph means, dresden, likely because
> youve never been involved with computer security to this degree.
>
> "Custom" does not mean the same thing as "specific". You need "specific"
> hardware to gain a C2 certification for WinNT 4.0, but not "custom".
>
> In short, you're an idiot.
>
<SNIP completely fucking stupid shit>
abraxas you are moron, total died in the wool completely pathetic moron.
You've answer NOTHING, you've dodged around in syntax and words but answer
nothing. You have no facts, you provide no documents, you don't even pretend
to try to create lies to masquierade as facts. you can't even pretend to be
smart you are so amazingly stupid.
in short, you exist as something lower than a cumstain on some motel
sheet... go away.
prove how a laptop cannot be C2 certified?
prove how plugging in a microphone into a C2 certified system invalidates
the certification?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 11:55:16 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
That's nice Bernie I'm sure you had quite a rush setting it up.
On 17 Jun 2000 14:35:17 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>>Sounds like par for the course.
>
>Funny --- I read that comment on an 80x27 console, with a 9x32 charcell,
>displaying on an Apple 21gs two page greyscale fixed frequency monitor,
>at 75Hz refresh. And it was trivial to set up, too ;-)
>
>Of course, I could do all sorts of other widths and heights, but by and
>large, I have found that 80x27 is a nice size --- and it stops me from
>using overlong lines that other people on 80xWhatever screens can't
>read properly.
>
>Bernie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
