Linux-Advocacy Digest #928, Volume #27 Mon, 24 Jul 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Re: Some Miserable weekend with Windows :( (Steve)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Bob B.)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Spud")
Re: EDS ("Mike Palmer")
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown ("Colin R. Day")
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k ("Spud")
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k ("Spud")
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Steve)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (sandrews)
Re: If Microsoft starts renting apts (was: If Microsoft starts renting
apps) (Clell A. Harmon)
Re: If Microsoft starts renting apts (was: If Microsoft starts renting
apps) (Clell A. Harmon)
Re: If Microsoft starts renting apts (was: If Microsoft starts renting
apps) (Clell A. Harmon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 02:05:56 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:50:47 GMT, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:35:47 -0700, dakota
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Just installed Mandrake 7.1 with medium security
[deletia]
>>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>?
>
>Tell that to the poor fool who installs Linux out
Telnet is the only one that really has to be worried about.
pop and ftp are actually quite useful and identd is somewhat
required in certain situations (irc).
>of the box and selects medium security and ends up
>with a wide open system.
>
>You're the idiot for even asking.
Without a static IP address it's pretty much a moot point
either way. OTOH, you don't have to have a well defined and
stable 'IP identity' to be wide open under Windows networking.
The WinDOS attempt at being 'easy' also makes it remarkably more
open, given a quite common sort of user error, than a Unix box
with the most sloppy of security practices.
>
>
>>>
>>>Windows 98 se with ICS installed closes all of
>>>those ports and several are in stealth mode.
[deletia]
>>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.
>
>
>Windows has those ports closed by default.
>Linux does not.....
No, Windows merely doesn't bother to address those features.
It is rather more like a Macintosh in this instance.
>
>
>>>
>>>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.
>
>
>Sure it isn't. The ports are just wide open.
...to experts using character stream tools.
WinDOS is quite often wide open to complete idiots using
tools requiring no particular aptitude.
>
>>
>>>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.
>
>
>Or who want to spend their entire summer reading
>how-to's related to security instead of
>downloading ZoneAlarm_>clicking setup.exe and
>sitting on the beach in East Hampton sipping
>drinks with umbrella's in them and looking at half
>naked women.
If you want a secure system, then you do the work.
Otherwise someone brighter than you is going to be
hacking your box despite of your shiny happy security
blanket.
You foolishly put your trust in one set of developers
just when another set of developers failed you.
[deletia]
Not only does WinDOS make it quite likely that you will
have all of your files free and accessable to the whole
damn ISP, but you'll be clogging any common backbone
(think cablemodems here) with completely extraneous broadcast
traffic.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some Miserable weekend with Windows :(
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 02:09:07 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:42:35 -0700, Paul Bary
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>>
>> 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
>Look's like we jumped into the pool at the same time...I started with
>the same book and distro. After investing several days trying to get
>an old PAS16 sound card to work I said the hell with it <G>
Fantastic Card!! A real nightmare to get working
though with double the interrupts and so forth.
What great sound though, especially if you used a
game that used the native PAS sound instead of the
SB emulation.
>You might be interested in a thread posted a little bit after this one
>called "No wonder hackers like Linux". Check out the posting from
>a person named Dakota for an example of the chorus I referred to. All
>you need do is question that Linux in its current state isn't perfect
>and you're guaranteed to be verbally assaulted and your intelligence
>questioned. I paticularly like when the attacker can't dispute an
>assertion, the bring out a laundry list of things they view as bad....
>let's see..grass is green...reply, but Windows sucks because... (fill in
>the blanks)
Prior to Win98SE, and correct me if I am wrong, I
believe Windows left everything wide open also. I
was very surprised when i installed SE and ICS and
found mostly closed and stealth ports and NO open
ones.
I was equally suprised to find Mandrake 7.1 wide
open to telnet, ftp and other attacks, right out
of the box.
This is in-excusable, especially from an OS that
touts itself as secure.
With all of the mainstream press that Linux has
received, people expect it to be secure out of the
box.
FTP? Telnet? wide open?
This is major...
>Oh well, I suppose it takes all kinds...
>
>Paul
>> >> 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.
>> >
>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
From: Bob B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:06:36 -0700
dakota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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>?
This is a great way to win friends and influence people - start
off by calling them an idiot. Ipchains will in fact close these
ports. So the authors of ipchains seem to think they are a
security risk, even if you don't.
>
>>
>>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.
>
You are ingoring the original poster's point - by default,
Windows SE sets up a reasonable level of security - Linux (at
least Mandrake) does not.
>>
>>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.
Why the snotty attitude ? Because someone hasn't spent hours and
hours learning Linux doesn't mean they don't have a brain. And
Linux IS meant for newbies, as well as Unix geeks. Why do you
suppose there is so much feverish activity working on "user
friendly" desktops and office suites ?
>
>
>>
>>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.
There are several ways to check your security. The Gibson
Research site is a good one, and much easier than building a
utility from source code, and more informative than netstat.
Bob B.
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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 22:07:39 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >Not sure about railroads. And are you sure that government did a
> >better job with the money than private citizens would have done?
>
> This presumes that those private citizens/companies would
> have shown the foresight to bother, rather than persuing
> more immediate selfish goals.
>
Which presumes that the government would have acted with
foresight, rather than pursuing the immediate, selfish goals of
government officials.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:09:48 -0700
[snips]
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > What would YOU associate them with, then? Perl? Patently absurd.
> > Associations exist for a reason. Unsafe computing practices don't
> > change that.
> >
>
> Sorry, I was being Linuxcentric. In Linux one would use a
> command line or have Netscape and kfm with different
> associations. Are there two (or more) such browsers
> with which one could do this in Windows?
Probably; thing is, Windows users who are likely to even care about
such features can't be bothered; there are better ways of doing
things. "Look, Ma! I can run a Perl Script intended to process
server logs... in my browser! Ain't that cute!"
Gag.
> > > Why were Visual Basic scripts not associated with a text editor?
> >
> > Because that would be a *stupid* way to do things.
>
> Annoying, yes, but less annoying than wiping out your data.
Never happened here. Not bloody likely to.
------------------------------
From: "Mike Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EDS
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:12:07 -0700
Reply-To: "Mike Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"ostracus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:eoKe5.1791$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Everyone has heard the expression that controlling programmers is like
"herding
> cats". Well EDS has shown a commercial were they're doing just that
(herding
> cats)..
Cats? Shucks, they was herdin' programmers! Told 'em there was a big box of
Linux and some fresh Gnu waitin' for 'em back at the Corel (sic), and off
they went...
(My cats would never allow themselves to be herded by a lesser animal like a
horse. Or a human.)
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 22:12:57 -0400
Woofbert wrote:
>
> The Germans didn't agree with the US analysis of the effectiveness of
> tanks, and developed a couple of different Panzers ... which are the
> basis of the current Israeli design. The Sherman, with its flat front
> end, was years behind German design.
>
But from what I have read, the Sherman was more rugged, which is
important when you're fighting on another continent.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:16:17 -0700
[snips]
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Really? Funny; last I checked, DOS was a real OS - just one
intended
> > for single tasking. What you're describing isn't a "real OS", but
a
> > multitasking OS. Multitasking is a feature available in _some_
OSen,
> > but not all. This is basic computing theory.
>
> Depends on who you talk to.
>
> DOS = Disk Operating System
Check those last two words.
> An OS typically *has* a DOS (or, more recently, a VFS), but a DOS
> isn't an OS.
Despite the name, despite fulfilling all the requirements of an OS.
Not a "multi-user, multi-tasking, multi-threaded, protected mode OS
with virtual memory support", true... just an OS.
> But, personally, MS-DOS would have to be considered an OS because it
> attempts to abstract the hardware; even though it has an unfortunate
> name.
Voila. One may not liken it to _current_ OSen... but that doesn't
mean it isn't an OS; just not one to be compared to what's shipping
today.
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:17:10 -0700
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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?
Haven't got one of those; I do, however, have closets full of truly
ancient hardware. (Don't ask.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 02:18:10 GMT
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:16:17 -0700, Spud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> DOS = Disk Operating System
>
>Check those last two words.
>
>> An OS typically *has* a DOS (or, more recently, a VFS), but a DOS
>> isn't an OS.
>
>Despite the name, despite fulfilling all the requirements of an OS.
>Not a "multi-user, multi-tasking, multi-threaded, protected mode OS
>with virtual memory support", true... just an OS.
If the software doesn't manage resources, it is hardly an operating system.
DOS is a filesystem and program loader and little else. It hasn't any
services that weren't so piss poor that application writers didn't have to
bypass them and talk directly to the hardware.
------------------------------
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 02:18:58 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 02:05:56 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> Without a static IP address it's pretty much a moot point
> either way. OTOH, you don't have to have a well defined and
> stable 'IP identity' to be wide open under Windows networking.
Cable modems and other 24/7 systems are wide open.
I dial-up several times a day and I am scanned all
of the time.
Many times by someone here in this group, but that
is another story all together.
Suffice to say I know who it is. He comes a
knockin' but he can't get in.
> The WinDOS attempt at being 'easy' also makes it remarkably more
> open, given a quite common sort of user error, than a Unix box
> with the most sloppy of security practices.
Wrong...Zonealarm even on default medium settings
closes all ports. Linux defualt does not.
Sendmail exploits among others are another *nix
issue.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Windows 98 se with ICS installed closes all of
>>>>those ports and several are in stealth mode.
>[deletia]
>>>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.
>>
>>
>>Windows has those ports closed by default.
>>Linux does not.....
>
> No, Windows merely doesn't bother to address those features.
What are you talking about?
The ports are closed and most are in stealth mode.
> It is rather more like a Macintosh in this instance.
??????????
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>
>>Sure it isn't. The ports are just wide open.
>
> ...to experts using character stream tools.
To any idiot with a gui based scanner.
Today you don't have to know anything in order to
wreak havoc with a wide open system like a default
Linux install leaves you with.
> WinDOS is quite often wide open to complete idiots using
> tools requiring no particular aptitude.
On some older systems (pre Win98SE) this is true
and my comments apply to thoses systems as well. I
was addressing current Linux and Windows systems
however, in default configurations.
Any idiot can render even the most secure system a
wide open one in short order and this applies to
Linux as well as Windows.
>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>
>>Or who want to spend their entire summer reading
>>how-to's related to security instead of
>>downloading ZoneAlarm_>clicking setup.exe and
>>sitting on the beach in East Hampton sipping
>>drinks with umbrella's in them and looking at half
>>naked women.
>
> If you want a secure system, then you do the work.
> Otherwise someone brighter than you is going to be
> hacking your box despite of your shiny happy security
> blanket.
ZoneAlarm and Norton were both highly rated and in
their default configs no work is required.
Nothing, nada....
> You foolishly put your trust in one set of developers
> just when another set of developers failed you.
I know what works from experience. An expert in
security will of course be able to design a
superior system for either Linux or Windows.
A default installer (99 percent of the rest of the
world) will have their ass exposed using Linux but
not Windows 98SE with ICS and maybe ZoneAlarm.
Setup.exe is all it takes.
>[deletia]
>
> Not only does WinDOS make it quite likely that you will
> have all of your files free and accessable to the whole
> damn ISP, but you'll be clogging any common backbone
> (think cablemodems here) with completely extraneous broadcast
> traffic.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 22:19:26 -0400
From: sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > >
> > > Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > [...]
> > > >You can't even be bothered to test a simple 10-line program, and
> > > >yet, you expect us to believe your other exhortations?
> > > >
> > > >Come now, we're not nearly as stupid as you, punk.
> > >
> > > Well, that's true, but he was providing a quick-and-dirty example of a
> > > concept, and his code illustrated the solution. He might be stupid (and
> > > I'm anxious to learn more either way), but he is merely a "punk", at
> > > best, for not actually testing the scratch-code he was using for a
> > > simple example. I'd like to hear a more telling argument confronting
> > > his other exhortations, if you've got one.
> >
> > More to the point, he thinks that string-variables are an appropriate
> > solution for binary data.
>
> No, I just did it cause it was quick and dirty but you constantly ignore
> that. Fine.
>
> >
> > Strings are assumed to terminate at any byte that is all 00's.
>
> Wrong. You are wrong. Ahhh mr programmer man, you are so limited in your
> knowledge and skills and it shows. Basic is not hampered by zero
> termination. I can include ascii 0 values in my strings all I want,
> anywhere, without any ill effect. You'd know that if you were a real
> programmer...
>
Are you talking about \0 = nil or "0" which is 0x30. There`s a large
difference.
the former is a nil and the latter an ascii "0". The nil is a
non-displayable
character how does that hamper the C language? You sir know nothing
about
programming in C. What you have shown is that you use and are
comfortable using
a script "kiddy language". I would not embarrass myself with such a
language.
Learn how to program and USE a REAL programming language!
Another luser, running a luser os, scripting with a luser language =
microsoft.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clell A. Harmon)
Subject: Re: If Microsoft starts renting apts (was: If Microsoft starts
renting apps)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 02:21:05 GMT
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:01:27 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >you're not funny, you're just droll.
>> >>
>> >> See what I mean Aaron? You couldn't have written it, you use
>> >> words casually that you don't know the meaning of. To actually write
>> >> an amusing piece like the above is beyond you.'
>> >
>> >Never underestimate your opponent.
>>
>> I would never underestimate you Aaron.
>
>You aleady have.
SURE I have Aaron.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clell A. Harmon)
Subject: Re: If Microsoft starts renting apts (was: If Microsoft starts
renting apps)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 02:22:34 GMT
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:01:41 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> : > >> >I wrote it.
>> >> : > >>
>> >> : > >> No, really.
>> >> : > >
>> >> : > >Do I have to post a damn copyright notice?
>> >> : >
>> >> : > Steal one of those too?
>> >>
>> >> : you're not funny, you're just droll.
>> >>
>> >> Sorry Aaron. I read something similar to this way back in the days of
>> >
>> >How similar? I have never read any such item.
>>
>> SURE you haven't.
>
>prove it.
OOOH, 'Pwove it' he says. Face it Aaron, you got caught
lying, all your foot stamping won't change reality.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> Windows v3.1. It's anything but your concoction.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clell A. Harmon)
Subject: Re: If Microsoft starts renting apts (was: If Microsoft starts
renting apps)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 02:24:50 GMT
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:02:01 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >> Sorry Aaron. I read something similar to this way back in the days of
>> >> Windows v3.1. It's anything but your concoction.
>> >
>> >Strange, I never saw any such text to which you are referring.
>> >My net-access ended when I finished college in 1989, and was not
>> >resumed until 1997.
>>
>> Uh huh, SURE Aaron..
>
>Proof?
"Pwove it" he whines. Face it you got caught attempting to
pass off a 12 year old joke as your own. Pathetic, even for a limbot.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
