Linux-Advocacy Digest #926, Volume #27 Mon, 24 Jul 00 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Arthur Frain)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451750 (Davie Tholen) (Marty)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Greg Yantz)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Steve)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (dakota)
Re: Some Miserable weekend with Windows :( (Steve)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen) (Marty)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Steve)
Re: Some Miserable weekend with Windows :( (Bob Hauck)
Re: Some Miserable weekend with Windows :( (Bob Hauck)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen) (Marty)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 21:11:05 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >Can I interest you in a sniper-grade AR-15....accurate to 1,000 yards...
> >
> > Goddammit! Stop that!
>
> How about crocadiles!?!?
> Remember that scene from "Live and Let Die" ???
>
Or "Goldfinger": No, Mr Gates, I don't expect you to do mathematical
typesetting in Microsoft Word, I expect you to die!
MWAAHAAHAAHAA!!
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came...
Date: 25 Jul 2000 01:15:01 GMT
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:43:36 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
>
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:30:10 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>
>> >Because it's a violation of MY First Amendment rights.
>>
>> How so ?
>
>Campaigning depends upon communications....ie. advertising, etc.
>I have a right to assist any candidate I choose to buy as much
>advertisements and other publicity and communications has he/she
>sees fit.
>
>Any restriction on that right moves the balance of power into the
>hands of newspaper editors.
If you believe that the right to "assist any candidate" should not
be subject to any restrictions, I don't see any grounds for your objection
to the way the democrats financed their campaign. This kind of doublethink
seems prevalent in the republican camp. On one hand, they cry foul about
the incident, but on the other hand, they don't want to stamp out
corruption for fear of treading on their own feet.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:08:35 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Oh god. This is so stupid. The main reason why most areas have
> Electricity monopolies is BECAUSE OF the government, as they
> GRANTED MONOPOLIES to the various power companies.
> Every place where such officially sanctioned monopolies have been
> overturned, the price of electricity drops IMMEDIATELY when a
> competing company comes into the local market.
Just happen to have my electric bill handy. I pay:
$0.021 per KWh for the first 2000 KWh
$0.027 per KWh for the next 2000 KWh
$0.0285 per KWh after that.
This is not only from a monopoly utility company,
it's a government (county) owned monopoly utility
(but I do get to vote for the officers of the
company). There is no government subsidy for this
utility; in fact it returns money to the community
in the form of parks, waterway improvements,
irrigation (fee-based), flood control, and other
things. Oh yeah, they have a really nice local
history museum in the dam with free admission too.
And bunnies (lots of 'em) on their lawn. And they're
in the process of building a fiber optic
infrastructure throughout the county.
Please point me to a private electricity provider
who has lower rates - I'd seriously like to see
if there is one. I'd even be impressed with a
utility whose rates are only double what I pay.
OTOH, if you can't do that, I'd seriously doubt
you know what you're talking about.
Arthur (not expecting an answer)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:36:50 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > DR-DOS implemented true Multi-processing in 1985, yet Microsoft
> > > didn't accomplish the same task for another 8 years.
> > >
> > > AND DR-DOS WAS ONLY 2 YEAR OLD!!!!!
> >
> > Wrong again. DR-DOS *NEVER* implemented multi-processing (the ability
to
> > use multiple processors) on PC's. Ever.
>
> I'm talking about running MULTIPLE PROCESSES concurrently. The
> number of processors is irrelevent.
That's called Multitasking. Even on systems without the concept of a task
(like earlier Unix systems).
> > God, have you NO clue about PC history? MS developed OS/2 *FOR* IBM.
It
> > was a partnership, until 1993 when they broke up.
>
> could be. I'm not aware of the specifics. I do know that MS reneged
> on the deal with IBM re OS/2, but knowing how Gates work, he probably
> made sure that there was a weasel-hole in the contract.
Contracts are usually for a specific time length. Consider that MS and IBM
signed the OS/2 deal in 1985 or 1986, a 7 year contract is pretty standard.
> > > > Yes. Terminal services provides complete multi-user capability.
And it
> > > > ships with Win2000 server and advanced server.
> > >
> > > So, finally, after 20 years, Microsoft accomplishes the same
> > > thing that their predessorcs accomplished in the 1960's on puny
> > > little 16k machines.
> > >
> > > Forgive me if my applause is silent.
> >
> > Just shows how little you know about PC's, and how you have no
credibility
> > when discussing them.
>
> Right... i'm only a computer systems engineer who studied at one of the
> top 10 universities in the world for the subject.
Then why is it that you didn't know that MS wrote most of OS/2? Why do you
consider Multitasking to be Multiprocessing (though I will admit that the
term Multiprocessing was used synonymously with Multitasking in the old IBM
mainframe days, before multiprocessor machines were invented)
> > > > Really? In every single Unix that has existed since 1970?
> > >
> > > Yup
> >
> > Really? Let's see you change the number of processes without a kernel
> > recompile on circa 1990 BSD.
>
> I take it, you mean the size of the process table.
Which controls how many processes you can run. DUH!
> Simple.. bring up adb, dbx, or gdb on the /dev/kmem, allocate a
> new process table, copy the contents of the old process table to the
> new process table, and change the pointer to the process table.
And you do this without stopping the kernel process? Yeah right.
> For greater authority on the subject, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> He used this method for tuning some Gould Electronics systems which
> we were Beta testing at Purdue. Once he got a good tuning of buffer
> space, etc., THEN he recompiled the kernal.
Not something you can do on a production machine, now is it?
> > > > > The only time you need to modify the kernal is to:
> > > > > a) fine tune the kernal (buffer or shared mem allotment).
> > > > > One CAN do this by running a debugger in /dev/kmem.
> > > > > b) upgrade the O/S.
> > > >
> > > > Really? Let's see you do that on SCO Unix from 1985.
> > >
> > > So, you want to compare M$ -2000 products with 1985 Unix.
> > >
> > > That's an admission of defeat if I've ever seen one.
> >
> > No, I'm saying you're full of shit when you say that Unix has had this
for
> > 30 years.
>
> See above.
Yes, see above.
> > > > Wait a minute... You just said "Only when...does the file become
> > > > fragmented". So how does that dispute the fact that I said all
> > filesystems
> > > > fragement? Clearly this does fragment under the right conditions.
> > > >
> > > > > On the large majority of installations, this works good enough so
that
> > > > > NO file is ever fragmented.
> > > >
> > > > Funny, my redhat box claims a 2.7% fragmentation.
> >
> > Note, no response.
Note, no response again.
> > > I keep my hands clean of such abominations.
> >
> > Because you didn't know they existed.
>
> NT is an abomination, likewise, anything that runs on it.
Hmm.. GCC runs on it. I guess GCC is an abomination then, so does gdb. Oh,
and Unix can run on NT as well (since it's a pseudo micro-kernel).
> > > > > By your definition, Windows doesn't have a gui.
> > > >
> > > > No, the GUI is simply part of the OS, not a seperate app.
> > >
> > > spin spin spin...
> >
> > What the hell are you talking about?
>
> Your technique of trying to put a new face on an old lie.
I ask again. What the hell are you talking about?
We're talking about my "supposed" definition of a GUI, not "a new face on an
old lie".
Can you stick to the topic? Oh, I forget. This is classic zealot advocacy,
if you can't logically argue against the statement, change the subject.
> > You're forgetting something. Microsofts consumer OS's are not in the
same
> > market as a Unix system from 20 years earlier. Nor do they cost
anywhere
> > near the same.
>
> Correct. I can get Linux for a couple of bucks.
We're talking about the cost of a Unix system from 20 years ago. Again,
stick to the topic.
> I can get Solaris for the cost of shipping and handling.
If you don't use it commercially.
> > > And what is so special about DirectX other than the fact that it's
> > > a big freaking security hole? DirectX accomplishes NOTHING of
> > > benefit which can't be accomplished by other, MUCH more secure means.
> >
> > You're thinking of ActiveX, not DirectX. Again, your ignorance shows
> > through.
>
> So, explain the supposed benefits of DirectX.
I shouldn't have to, Mr. Operating systems expert.
> > You were wrong.
>
> Not my fault you're too befuddled to know when you're in an
> embarrasing situation.
Stop changing the subject. You were wrong. Admit it.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 21:22:00 -0400
Spud wrote:
>
> I prefer to keep a working version that'll work on my 8086 with < 1Mb
> RAM.
>
> Looks like you lose again. Hardly surprising.
What about a Palm Pilot?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451750 (Davie Tholen)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:23:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Jeff Glatt writes:
>
> >> yet those who carefully look at all of Marty's responses
>
> > Who are "those"??
>
> The ones who look carefully at all of Marty's responses, Glatt.
How would you know what they think? Reading other people's minds again,
Tholen?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
From: Greg Yantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Jul 2000 21:35:59 -0400
Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > Oh god. This is so stupid. The main reason why most areas have
> > Electricity monopolies is BECAUSE OF the government, as they
> > GRANTED MONOPOLIES to the various power companies.
> > Every place where such officially sanctioned monopolies have been
> > overturned, the price of electricity drops IMMEDIATELY when a
> > competing company comes into the local market.
> Just happen to have my electric bill handy. I pay:
> $0.021 per KWh for the first 2000 KWh
> $0.027 per KWh for the next 2000 KWh
> $0.0285 per KWh after that.
> This is not only from a monopoly utility company,
> it's a government (county) owned monopoly utility
> (but I do get to vote for the officers of the
> company). There is no government subsidy for this
> utility; in fact it returns money to the community
> in the form of parks, waterway improvements,
> irrigation (fee-based), flood control, and other
> things. Oh yeah, they have a really nice local
> history museum in the dam with free admission too.
> And bunnies (lots of 'em) on their lawn. And they're
> in the process of building a fiber optic
> infrastructure throughout the county.
This is hydro-electric power? If it is, it rather tends
to invalidate your whole point.
> Please point me to a private electricity provider
> who has lower rates - I'd seriously like to see
> if there is one. I'd even be impressed with a
> utility whose rates are only double what I pay.
Heh. I think I'd like to see an electricity provider with
lower expenses, anywhere.
> OTOH, if you can't do that, I'd seriously doubt
> you know what you're talking about.
When was the dam (dams?) built? How was it financed?
-Greg
------------------------------
From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:38:01 GMT
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:45:44 -0400, "Aaron R.
Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Steve wrote:
>>
>> Just installed Mandrake 7.1 with medium security
>> setting and install option of everything.
>>
>> Port 21 ftp WIDE OPEN.
>>
>> Port 23 telnet WIDE OPEN
>>
>> Port 110 pop3 WIDE OPEN
>>
>> Port 113 ident Wide open....
>>
>> Not to mention all of the other security holes due
>> to inetd running every service known to mankind.
>>
>> Windows 98 se with ICS installed closes all of
>> those ports and several are in stealth mode.
>>
>> No wonder the script kiddies seems to love
>> Linsux.....
>
>That is NOT a problem with linux, as you CLEARLY indicate below.
>It is a problem with the default setting chosen by Mandrake.
I agree with you Aaron as far as the semantic
argument is concerned, and a Windows parallel
would be "my x, video driver leaves mouse trails
with Windows 98", but in reality people use the
entire package, and that applies to Windows as
well.
If there is a fault, people are going to blame it
on the package, be it Windows or Linux. This is
one reason why I do not support the "driver
brought the OS down" excuse. Even if it is true,
and it usually is, the system as a whole needs to
provide stability/security or whatever function is
important to the person using it.
In the case of security, thes user may not even
know what is going on before it is too late.
Arguing over the packaging is not the solution,
fixing the problem is. And this goes for Windows
as well.
My original Windows 98 install (not SE) was wide
open with netbui and virtually every port exposed.
Did I know this? Nope..Not until I stumbled upon
some website that clued me in.
Windows 98SE at least with ICS installed, seems to
close up these holes.
Linux does not, and really should as default.
My Norton firewall reported 6 attacks last night
of Back orifice, and while this is a Windows
exploitation, there are plenty of nix
exploitations as well.
Let's get some security in these default
installs!..
Steve
>
>>
>> Typical newbie will install it with defaults and
>> be hacked within a couple of hours.
>>
>> BTW SuSE 6.4, Install Everything did somewhat
>> better in that only ports 80 and 113 were open.
>>
>> I only checked via www.grc.com which does not
>> check all ports.
>>
>> God only knows what else is wide open.....
>>
>> Steven
------------------------------
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
From: dakota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:35:47 -0700
Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Just installed Mandrake 7.1 with medium security
>setting and install option of everything.
>
>Port 21 ftp WIDE OPEN.
>
>Port 23 telnet WIDE OPEN
>
>Port 110 pop3 WIDE OPEN
>
>Port 113 ident Wide open....
>
>Not to mention all of the other security holes due
>to inetd running every service known to mankind.
Are you an idiot??? Just because those ports are left open
doesn't mean its a security risk. There are millions of servers
out there that leave those ports open and suffer no ill side
effects. Besides that, you can pipe everyone one of those
services and more through an encrypted ssh session. Are you
aware of those things called "firewalls" <snicker>?
>
>Windows 98 se with ICS installed closes all of
>those ports and several are in stealth mode.
Winshit 98 has a badly broken TCP/IP stack (not to mention the
plethora of shutdown and APM problems) as does Windows 95/NT/Win
2000. Nmap can detect them quickly and they are highly
susceptible to DoS attacks. Try sending an oversized packet to
Winshit 95, or try sending a malformed ICMP packet to any of the
above and see what happens. Have you seen the lastest security
bulletin from Meglasoft? It mentions a problem with Win2000's
telnet server in which there is a DoS vulnerability but they
play it down by giving the excuse that you can stop and restart
the service. You see, the "Microsoft" version of security is
very flawed and nearly non-existent, as evidenced by the many
security bulletins they put out on a daily basis. All the
stealth mode <I'm still laughing at this one> that Microsoft has
to offer isn't going to protect you from denial of service
attacks. Can MS products filter by Type of Service or Quality
of Service, I don't think so. Can MS products do IP
masquerading or filtering (ipchains in Linux), I don't think so.
>
>No wonder the script kiddies seems to love
>Linsux.....
>
They like it because its design is extremely flexible. The
TCP/IP stack isn't flawed, either.
>Typical newbie will install it with defaults and
>be hacked within a couple of hours.
>
Linux is NOT meant for the typical winnewbie. It's meant for
people that have a brain.
>
>BTW SuSE 6.4, Install Everything did somewhat
>better in that only ports 80 and 113 were open.
>
Your webserver doesn't have to listen on port 80. Have you
heard of a "proxy server"? Squid comes to mind for Unix, it's
free and quite versatile. It can also act as an http
accelerator. What has windows got, MS proxy server
2.0<snicker>? ipchains can be effectively used to lock down the
ident service on port 113.
>I only checked via www.grc.com which does not
>check all ports.
>
>God only knows what else is wide open.....
>
Your PC experience, or lack thereof, is showing. All you have
to do is a "netstat -a" command to see which ports are open
and/or listening, by they way, you can also issue that command
verbatim in a Windows dos box to achieve similar results. Or go
get the source code for satan, santa, or nmap and compile it,
that way you don't have to rely on a web-based port scanner, as
an added bonus all of those have an optional GUI front-end and
they are free. There are lots of security problems that reside
above port 1024 (isn't that as high as grc goes?) take
BackOrifice for instance.
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some Miserable weekend with Windows :(
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:40:42 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:52:24 -0700, Paul Bary
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Steve...You think it's bad now...trust me, it has come a long
>way in the last year or so in so far a useability...go back more
>than 2 years and it was really ugly.
Believe me I know. I go back to some Slackware
distro that was in a Sams book God knows how many
years ago:)
Linux has come a lot farther in the same number of
years than Windows has.
>I enjoy using Linux and have fussed with it on and off for several
>years. I do find the blind spot that many advocates have about
>useablity to be if anything, amusing. The Windows world, for all
>its blemishes is still in a much more advanced state. This being said,
>I'm sure I'll fail the "true believer" test, be branded a "troll", and
>be told "well Linux isn't for everyone". Hang around here awhile and
>you'll soon learn the chorus'.
For those that have the knowledge or the time and
patience Linux can be an excellent choice.
Despite my sometimes rantings, Linux is a good
system that just needs a little user friendliness
incorporated in it.
Steve
>Paul
>
>Steve wrote:
>>
>> As far as ease of set-up the Linux solution and
>> Windows solution are on different planets.
>>
>> I've been reading the Linux How-to's for the past
>> day or 2 and I can't imagine anyone other than a
>> Linux guru setting this stuff up.
>>
>> The Windows solution?
>>
>> Windows 98SE:
>>
>> Control panel->Internet Connection Sharing
>> ->enable.
>>
>> Connect to the internet with the host computer
>> (this is the step I missed) and insert a floppy.
>>
>> When it is done take the floppy to each computer
>> on the network and execute the program.
>>
>> That's it.
>>
>> As for a firewall, ZoneAlarm works good and is
>> free. Norton Firewall seems a lot nicer and is
>> extremely user friendly. It comes set up already
>> for Napster/Gnutella and other services that
>> should be benign but you can customize everything
>> very easily with the wizards, down to the port,
>> domain and ip address IF YOU WANT TO. Point is you
>> don't HAVE TO, it is set up already.
>>
>> Now in my particular case I screwed up having
>> thought I un-installed my virus scanner and also
>> not being connected to the net when I made the
>> floppy. I have subsequently fixed those errors and
>> things work fine.
>>
>> The Linux solution is most likely just as powerful
>> but lacks in the ease of use department.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 21:18:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> (Bob Hauck) wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:31:44 -0600, Paul Bary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>yeah I know, I used a linux box as a nat router for awhile. I used
>> >>pmfirewall as quite honestly, the amount of background work necessary
>> >>for me to do it manually wasn't worth the effort
>> >
>> >What "background work"? I set mine up and it just runs. It does not
>> >need any tending. Running no services on the box greatly reduces the
>> >overhead of keeping up with security updates and the like.
>
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:38:50 GMT
Slava Pestov wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jacques Guy
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Slava Pestov wrote:
> >>
> >> > Before calling me a "bot", I suggest you take a long hard look at
> >> > your own posting history.
> >>
> >> Your first name is a dead give-away, Slava, a reference to your
> >> inventor and builder, Karel Capek. Likewise tinman. I ought to know,
> >> since I do live in the land known here as Oz. As for myself, I am just
> >> a product of my own diseased imagination. Or perhaps someone else's.
> >> Possibly even a T[o]uring Bo[a]t's.
> >
> > Can't speak for slava,
>
> You're erronously presupposing this is a spoken medium, Tinman.
Not at all. Note how he said he could *not* speak for Slava.
------------------------------
From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:41:44 GMT
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:44:27 -0400, "Aaron R.
Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Drestin has never stepped outside of Microsoft's little-endian
>reservation.
BIGGER IS better, so they say....
At 12" I wouldn't know of course :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> --
>> Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Some Miserable weekend with Windows :(
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:43:44 GMT
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:36:37 -0600, Paul Bary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:31:44 -0600, Paul Bary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >yeah I know, I used a linux box as a nat router for awhile.
>> What "background work"? I set mine up and it just runs.
>Oh, for starters, reading through the howto which when printed out was a
>stack of papers 'bout an inch thick...
So you really meant to say "I tried to use...". That's a different
thing than having to continually tweak it to keep it working. I mean,
if you _did_ get it to work then all that "stuff" would be past tense
and you would not gain anything by switching. But hey, if you'd rather
use something else, that's fine too.
Here's the short version of the HOWTO, btw:
ipchains -A forward -s 192.168.1.0/24 -j MASQ
for i in /lib/modules/2.2.16/ipv4/ip_masq_*.o; do insmod $i; done
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Some Miserable weekend with Windows :(
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:43:45 GMT
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 23:50:59 GMT, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I can't imagine anyone normal actually
>understanding this stuff.
I can't imagine _you_ understanding it, at least.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:43:22 GMT
Slava Pestov wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Slava Pestov wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Slava Pestov wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> > Slava Pestov wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> >> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Slava Pestov wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Are you implying that you have already lost all possible
> >> >> >> >> arguments?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Yet another person who doesn't know the difference between an
> >> >> >> > implication and an inference.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Jumping into discussion again, eh Marty?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not at all, Slava.
> >> >>
> >> >> Denials don't change the truth, Marty.
> >> >
> >> > Nor does pontification.
> >>
> >> Correct,
> >
> > Glad you agree.
>
> Your gladness is irrelevant.
Liar.
> >> but irrelevant, given that I have not been engaging in "pontification".
> >
> > You are erroneously presupposing that you have not been engaging in
> > "pontification".
>
> How ironic.
Not at all.
> > Meanwhile I see you have still failed to note the difference between an
> > implication and an inference.
>
> Argument by repetition?
What alleged "repetition"?
> Ineffective.
You are erroneously presupposing repetition on my part.
> Gearing up to lose another argument, eh Marty?
You are erroneously presupposing repetition on my part.
> >> >> > Meanwhile I see
> >> >>
> >> >> You see incorrectly.
> >> >
> >> > Yet another example of your pontification.
> >>
> >> Evidence, please.
> >
> > Self-evident.
>
> Incorrect.
Typical pontification, laced with being incorrect.
> Of course, if you had used the scientific method, you would
> have recognized that fact.
You are erroneously presupposing that I have not used the scientific method.
> >> >> Open your eyes, Marty.
> >> >
> >> > Impossible.
> >>
> >> On what basis do you claim it is impossible for you to open your eyes?
> >
> > Simple:
>
> On what basis do you make this claim?
See below.
> > my eyes were already open.
>
> The evidence indicates otherwise.
Balderdash. What alleged "evidence"?
> >> >> > you have failed to note the difference between an implication and
> >> >> > an inference.
> >> >>
> >> >> On the contrary.
> >> >
> >> > Yet another example of your pontification.
> >>
> >> How ironic, coming from someone who claims to be unable to open their
> >> eyes.
> >
> > Can you open your eyes when they are already open?
>
> Irrelevant, given that your eyes were not "already open".
Or so you illogically and incorrectly assumed.
> >> >> > No surprise there.
> >> >>
> >> >> See above.
> >> >
> >> > Above still holds no surprise for me.
> >>
> >> I wasn't trying to surprise you, Marty.
> >
> > No surprise there.
>
> See above.
Above still fails to hold surprise for me. Even moreso this time around as I
have read it twice already.
> >> > Even moreso this time around as I have read it already.
> >>
> >> Irrelevant.
> >
> > On the contrary,
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who claims I engage in "pontification".
Not at all, given your continued pontification.
> > it's quite relevant,
>
> Still strolling down irrelevancy lane, eh Marty?
I'm just following your lead.
> How predictable.
How predictable that you would lead me down irrelevancy lane and then pass the
blame to me.
> > given that you have told me to look at it again.
>
> Usenet is not a spoken medium, Marty.
Irrelevant.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
