Linux-Advocacy Digest #551, Volume #27 Sun, 9 Jul 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Warning! -- SONY SUBSTANDARD SERVICE! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Bob Lyday)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Vote for the best WinTroll - COLA Oscars (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon? (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Warning! -- SONY SUBSTANDARD SERVICE!
Date: 9 Jul 2000 16:23:20 GMT
On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 21:57:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Has it broken?
>Did you have to get it serviced by Sony?
>Have you actually had to use Sony Customer service?
I didn't have to take it back. Still, it looks like the kind of thing
the other guy's complaining about is more or less normal. From what I've
heard elsewhere, taking stuff back to Sony isn't that much harder than
taking stuff back anywhere else. In fact there was a guy posting some
time back who kept getting faulty monitors from Sony, and his complaint was
that while they were happy to replace them, he was getting tired of having
to return them !
Anyway, my point is that the original poster is spamming several
newsgroup with a false address from what seems to be an anonymous server.
And as such, has no credibility.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 09:47:27 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Bob Lyday wrote:
> >
> > SomeOne Else wrote:
> > >
> > > On 07 Jul 2000 00:32:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien) wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 20:35:34 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> > > >Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >| Of course, he realized quickly something about linux... a great potential, but
> > > >| not much to talk of for the end user right now. Which compared to Windows
> > > >| (a system with an equally great unused potential, but with numerous features
> > > >| for the end user), is a rather poor replacement...
> > > >
> > > >I happen to be an end-user who happens to think Linux is great and has
> > > >many more features for the end-user then Windows. Perhaps, you can
> > > >point out the end-user features available on Windows not available on
> > > >Linux?
> > > The ability of Macrocrap to "rent" you the software periodically.
> > > Forcing you to pay over and over and over.
> > >
> > > Still, I can live without that.
> >
> > Um, Yahoo Messenger. Um, ICQ. LOL.
>
> Nope. ICQ and Yahoo compatible agents are available.
The Yahoo Messenger is Java Messenger, which sucks. The ICQ is Java
ICQ, which I know nothing about except that it is not updated much and
lacks a number of features in the regular version.
--
> > Bob
> > "Turnabout is fair play, Robin" -- Batman.
> > Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
>
>
--
Bob
"Turnabout is fair play, Robin" -- Batman.
Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 12:53:47 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8jqb6s$1nkn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <Gr185.4267$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > >> Bundling/unbundling. It is just a question of who has the choices.
> > >
> > >Why do you prefer giving the DoJ the choices, then?
> >
> > They have no choice but to enforce the law.
>
> I think you are being a shade optimistic. But lets say you
> are right.
>
> Why do you prefer, then, giving the Congress the choices, they
> being the people who wrote the law that says you can't have
> a Internet browsing in a sufficiently popular desktop OS?
The issue of product and services bundling was resolved
OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO. It's an open and shut case.
Microsoft's legal department must have their heads up their asses.
DOJ's case is based on MOUNDS of precedence.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 12:54:48 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > You do keep saying that, but MS is smart enough to realise
> > > that interoperability works to their *advantage*; they go
> > > through great efforts to let you use their products with
> > > other peoples.
> >
> > Have you actually followed *any* of the current legal problems Microsoft
> > has been having?
>
> Sure.
>
> The most relevent is the trouble MS has got into by trying to make
> Java work as well with Windows as C++ does; but bear in mind
> this isn't making MS's products with with Suns, but in a sense
> the reverse: Altering Suns product (Java) work with MS's.
>
> To which Sun took considerable exception, as we all know.
>
> Perhaps MS will learn the lesson from this, and stick to making
> *one way* interoperability- make their products work with
> other peoples, but not the reverse.
>
If they had done that, they would not be in nearly as much trouble.
> > Your comment above passed false, and went into "MS PR" territory...
>
> :D
>
> Do I get to collect $200 or not?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Vote for the best WinTroll - COLA Oscars
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 17:13:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Björn De Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sun, 09 Jul 2000 08:28:59 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>James wrote:
>>
><snip>
>> One can call it the Troll vs Geek theatre, if
>> you like.
>>
><snip>
>
>I'm getting a strange mental image here...
>
>A is geek clad in battle armour, wearing
>5 millimeter thick glasses. She is wielding
>the sword 'Linscalibur' and fights nasty blue
>death trolls. And then she pulls out a big 'C'
>holy symbol to turn away the winzombies.
>
>Any artists out there care to take a shot at it?
>Would be a great picture for linux websites :)
Would she need huge.....tracts of land? :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "Draw? About all I can draw are flies... :-)"
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 13:58:28 -0400
DeAnn Iwan wrote:
>
> On 9 Jul 2000 09:07:02 GMT, Steve Mading
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >: Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
> >: endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
> >: Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k. I am no linvocate, but I
> >: find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
> >: push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
> >: Shame on you MS!!!
> >
> >What the hell is "13 times less reliable" supposed to mean? How do
> >you attach numbers to a concept like "reliability"?
>
> I guess it means that instead of crashing several times a
> day, it only crashes a few times a week. Or, perhaps it means instead
> of crashing frequently when using Word, Netscape or Canvas, it only
> crashes frequently when using Netscape or Canvas.
Ever notice how M$ **NEVER** owns up to the bugs in their products
until they have something new and expensive to sell you...
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 11:18:26 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8k9lh7$1oke$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > What is wrong with using router? How else would you connect one network
to
> > another? What is wrong with using a firewall? It is a zero cost option
on
> > my router since the landline is the limiting factor on performance.
What is
> > wrong with using a dialup PPP connection, when it is sufficient for my
> > needs? And what is wrong with the combination of these three items?
> >
>
> Its overkill and underkill all at the same time, in very many ways. In
short,
> if you half to ask....
You couldn't even finish your thought so you had to resort to "In short, if
you half to ask...."? :-)
> > Nothing, what is your problem with my setup?
> I think its unbelievably moronic.
In what way? My installation, works, it fullfills my needs, and it is
secure. What is moronic about that?
> > Network firewalls are like the locks on the enterances into our homes,
are
> > you suggesting that only the owners of mansions should lock their
> > properties?
> I actually do not believe in firewalls. They are sold to the unsuspecting
> public who do not understand network security. There is never a reason to
> have a ROUTER and a FIREWALL at the same time. If you have a decent
> router, you can do all the filtering you need at its point.
Wait a minute there! Using you own term, are you such a moron to believe
that I who have been a user and sysadmin of Linux since the days of
Slackware 1 and other unixes as well, would waste money and other resources
on aquiring on a dedicated hardware router and a sepperate dedicated
hardware firewall for my network? Dedicated hardware may have its benefits
for some situations but this is not one of them. Wake up! We are
discussing this in COLA after all!
Since I want to connect my internel network to the internet through a PPP
dialup account, I am required to use a router. Any host that can forward
network traffic between two or more interfaces is either a bridge or a
router.
There are also repeaters but they operate at a level that is too low to
support the connection between an internal ethernet and an external PPP
connection. So, what is wrong with a router in this situation? I am using
an old box that used to be a workstation, that I have removed all hardware
from that it would not need as a router, (the removed hardware has been
moved into another workstation). I am running Linux on that box, have
removed any software that is not needed for its intended function, through
demand dialing and idle link disconnect it gives my other boxes the illusion
of an always on dedicated network link to the internet. Without the cost or
overhead. that such a connection would require and it performs sufficiently
for my needs.
I also run a firewall as a primary line of defense that is the IPchains
packet
filtering firewall that is running within the kernel of the router. The
router box also provides other services such as a secondary name server for
my internal network as well as a forwarding name server. As a forwarding
name server it builds a cache of all normal name resolutions from any of the
hosts on my internal network of internet hosts. That speeds services to my
other boxes and reduces the traffic load on the PPP link and thereby
increases my effective bandwidth. It also provides my other boxes that
cannot run named to have an effective cache.
Running the firewall is in effect a zero cost situation since the bottleneck
of network traffice flow is the PPP connection. The other networking
services from that box provides real value to facilitate the access for the
other hosts on my network and are basically a zero cost option since they
consume only what would have otherwise been idle time on the processor
of the router. The entire box is running with free software, since many
people
discard their old machines when they upgrade their workstations, you could
almost say that the hardware of my router/firewall/etc was free as well.
The
only cost is for the electricity consumed.
So what make my installation so "unbelievably moronic"?
> Neat. A dynamic ip.
> Neat, two people got the same ip.
What is the probability of all that comming together the way it did with a
disinterested third party performing the scan? The probability is very low,
low enough the I was willing to propose the possibility in public of
Simon777's involvement. I did ask it as a question since it was not a 100%
cetain but 99.44% is close enough to question the possibility. What's more,
if I had a valid email address for Simon or whatever his name is, at the
time of the original posting, I would have handled this incident through
email instead of through COLA. However, the games that Simon777 has been
playing have prevented that. Now of course we know that his email address
is now mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Not terribly good, but not all that bad either. You havent got a leg
> to stand on, and your apparant network security skills are only hurting
> your case.
In which way are my skills hurting me?
> Quite possible. I think you are a paranoid loon.
No, you have your facts wrong again! I am not a loon, I am human. My
species is homo sapien sapien. I have ten finger with which I use this
keyboard. If I were a loon my digits would be imbedded into my wings and
not available for typing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Date: 9 Jul 2000 19:05:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8k9lh7$1oke$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> > What is wrong with using router? How else would you connect one network
> to
>> > another? What is wrong with using a firewall? It is a zero cost option
> on
>> > my router since the landline is the limiting factor on performance.
> What is
>> > wrong with using a dialup PPP connection, when it is sufficient for my
>> > needs? And what is wrong with the combination of these three items?
>> >
>>
>> Its overkill and underkill all at the same time, in very many ways. In
> short,
>> if you half to ask....
>
> You couldn't even finish your thought so you had to resort to "In short, if
> you half to ask...."? :-)
>
>
>> > Nothing, what is your problem with my setup?
>
>> I think its unbelievably moronic.
>
> In what way? My installation, works, it fullfills my needs, and it is
> secure. What is moronic about that?
>
>> > Network firewalls are like the locks on the enterances into our homes,
> are
>> > you suggesting that only the owners of mansions should lock their
>> > properties?
>
>> I actually do not believe in firewalls. They are sold to the unsuspecting
>> public who do not understand network security. There is never a reason to
>> have a ROUTER and a FIREWALL at the same time. If you have a decent
>> router, you can do all the filtering you need at its point.
>
> Wait a minute there! Using you own term, are you such a moron to believe
> that I who have been a user and sysadmin of Linux since the days of
> Slackware 1 and other unixes as well, would waste money and other resources
> on aquiring on a dedicated hardware router and a sepperate dedicated
> hardware firewall for my network? Dedicated hardware may have its benefits
> for some situations but this is not one of them. Wake up! We are
> discussing this in COLA after all!
>
> Since I want to connect my internel network to the internet through a PPP
> dialup account, I am required to use a router. Any host that can forward
> network traffic between two or more interfaces is either a bridge or a
> router.
> There are also repeaters but they operate at a level that is too low to
> support the connection between an internal ethernet and an external PPP
> connection. So, what is wrong with a router in this situation? I am using
> an old box that used to be a workstation, that I have removed all hardware
> from that it would not need as a router, (the removed hardware has been
> moved into another workstation). I am running Linux on that box, have
> removed any software that is not needed for its intended function, through
> demand dialing and idle link disconnect it gives my other boxes the illusion
> of an always on dedicated network link to the internet. Without the cost or
> overhead. that such a connection would require and it performs sufficiently
> for my needs.
>
> I also run a firewall as a primary line of defense that is the IPchains
> packet
> filtering firewall that is running within the kernel of the router. The
> router box also provides other services such as a secondary name server for
> my internal network as well as a forwarding name server. As a forwarding
> name server it builds a cache of all normal name resolutions from any of the
> hosts on my internal network of internet hosts. That speeds services to my
> other boxes and reduces the traffic load on the PPP link and thereby
> increases my effective bandwidth. It also provides my other boxes that
> cannot run named to have an effective cache.
>
> Running the firewall is in effect a zero cost situation since the bottleneck
> of network traffice flow is the PPP connection. The other networking
> services from that box provides real value to facilitate the access for the
> other hosts on my network and are basically a zero cost option since they
> consume only what would have otherwise been idle time on the processor
> of the router. The entire box is running with free software, since many
> people
> discard their old machines when they upgrade their workstations, you could
> almost say that the hardware of my router/firewall/etc was free as well.
> The
> only cost is for the electricity consumed.
>
> So what make my installation so "unbelievably moronic"?
>
Ah, I was under the impression that you were using two entirely different
pieces of hardware to do what youre doing. My mistake.
Yet part of good security practice is knowing exactly whats nessesary,
and a PPP connection will hardly attract too terribly many 31337 h@x0rz,
looking for places from which to flood, dump warez, and various and sundry
other bandwidth-intensive activities.
>
>> Neat. A dynamic ip.
>
>> Neat, two people got the same ip.
>
> What is the probability of all that comming together the way it did with a
> disinterested third party performing the scan?
Small enough that your blatant accusation was a mistake.
> No, you have your facts wrong again! I am not a loon, I am human. My
> species is homo sapien sapien. I have ten finger with which I use this
> keyboard. If I were a loon my digits would be imbedded into my wings and
> not available for typing.
>
You are a loon.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
