Linux-Advocacy Digest #947, Volume #27 Tue, 25 Jul 00 10:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451750 (Davie Tholen) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Some Miserable weekend with Windows :( (Bob Hauck)
Re: Microsoft, Linux and innovation (Jenny-poo)
Re: Sun revenues up WHOPPING 42% !!! (Jenny-poo)
Re: HELP ! ("1$Worth")
Re: Microsoft, Linux and innovation ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Some Miserable weekend with Windows :( (Steve)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Some Miserable weekend with Windows :( (Bob Hauck)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Steve)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (I R A Darth Aggie)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (dakota)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451750 (Davie Tholen)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:10:04 GMT
Marty writes:
>> 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?
Irrelevant, given that the above doesn't refer to what they think,
Marty.
> Reading other people's minds again, Tholen?
You're erroneously presupposing the relevance of your question,
Marty.
Go back to trying to figure out why you respond to McCoy, Marty.
After all, you asked me on more than one occasion why you would
do that, yet you obviously were doing just that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Some Miserable weekend with Windows :(
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:15:33 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:56:41 GMT, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:43:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Bob Hauck) wrote:
>
>>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.
>And I didn't, and you did, mainly because I am
>normal and you are not.
ROTFL! You, of all people, saying that someone is not normal! That's
a good one, Mr. Multiple Personality.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: Jenny-poo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft, Linux and innovation
Date: 25 Jul 2000 08:19:27 -0500
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:36:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 05:46:44 GMT, Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>You go ahead and plug every PnP card and peripheral into your BSD box that
>>Windows 2000 supports and have it work as well. Then you can talk about PnP
>>support.
>
> Keep your red herrings to yourself.
>
> The issue is PnP, not whether or not there is vendor
> support for a particular bit of hardware under a
> particular OS.
>
> Linux did ISA pnp (for non-isapnp hardware) before Win95
> was around to do so. Linux/Solaris/FreeBSD have all done
> PCI & SCSI pnp for years and now handle USB.
Are you saying that you can plug ANY ISO PnP device into Linux and it
will work?
------------------------------
From: Jenny-poo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun revenues up WHOPPING 42% !!!
Date: 25 Jul 2000 08:20:21 -0500
On 25 Jul 2000 10:14:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>
> Back to the main subject, some news stories have considered it odd
>that Sun has been so successful while bucking the trend to
>Microsoftization of the last few years. However, the rise of Linux may be
>a vindication of Sun's strategy; I suspect that Linux is much more
>helpful to Sun than Windows is, because Linux is much more
>Solaris-compatible than Windows is. Is that a reasonable assessment?
It also poses a large threat. Why do you think Sun gives away Solaris
now? hint: it's not cuz of Windows!
------------------------------
From: "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Re: HELP !
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:24:36 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[stuff]
run regedit and examine: the key
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run
or similar. Then delete offending program & prepare to be flamed for
posting in a Linux advocacy group.
Damn registry.....
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft, Linux and innovation
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:12:56 -0400
Jenny-poo wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:36:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 05:46:44 GMT, Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>You go ahead and plug every PnP card and peripheral into your BSD box that
> >>Windows 2000 supports and have it work as well. Then you can talk about PnP
> >>support.
> >
> > Keep your red herrings to yourself.
> >
> > The issue is PnP, not whether or not there is vendor
> > support for a particular bit of hardware under a
> > particular OS.
> >
> > Linux did ISA pnp (for non-isapnp hardware) before Win95
> > was around to do so. Linux/Solaris/FreeBSD have all done
> > PCI & SCSI pnp for years and now handle USB.
>
> Are you saying that you can plug ANY ISO PnP device into Linux and it
> will work?
Check the supported devices list. It's quite substantial.
--
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 R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:13:53 -0400
curmudgeon69 wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > MK wrote:
> > >
> > > On 21 Jul 2000 00:29:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>>You wanna see poverty, and HUGE disparities between the rich and the
> > > >>>>poor? Then go to a communist country and look around.
> > > >
> > > >>> Thus making it an inegalitarian's dream world.
> > > >>No, it's nearly egalitarian's dreamworld -- almost all starve equally.
> > > >
> > > > ROTFL. That's not egaltarianism but just the opposite.
> > >
> > > Scuze me?! That's sharing _equally_ whatever is there, or whatever
> > > is lacking. That's egalitarianism -- sharing benefits and miseries
> > > (almost) equally.
> > >
> > > Petrich, your brain is fried! You don't get the simplest ideas right!
> > >
> >
> > Typical of those living in the greatest example of how capitalism
> > DOES work (for anyone who has motivation, and even a lot who don't),
> > who STILL wants a communist system.
> >
> >
> > > MK
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > There is no leftist thinking other than inherently muddleheaded
> thinking.
> >
> > --
> > 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.
> <---Jessica Hahn
What part of
TAMMY Fae Baker +
Jessica HAHN
do you not understand?
> >
> > H: Knackos...you're a retard.
--
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: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some Miserable weekend with Windows :(
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:29:45 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:43:55 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:57:13 GMT, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>And how is one to know what services to turn off
>>or leave on?
>
> How will a canned tool that makes no allowances for
> individual needs get it right exactly?
You can configure it any way you like, but it's
not necessary unless you have special
requirements.
The default works fine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:51:22 GMT,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 23:50:59 GMT, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>I am looking at them as we speak, and my steel
>>>>scale (made by General Instruments BTW) shows 1
>>>>and 1/4 inch thick of mostly out dated
>>>>techno-babble. The assumption of prior experience
>>>>is insulting and just the overall tone of the
>>>>documents (ie:you might try this, or you can try
>>>>that") is foolish. I want answers, cookbook
>>>>instructions, not some hit or miss set of
>>>>instructions that tries, and then fails to
>>>>encompass all of Linux.
>>>>
>>>>I can't imagine anyone normal actually
>>>>understanding this stuff.
>>>
>>> You don't need to really.
>>>
>>> You can just click the dialogs off and on to turn services off.
>>>
>>>[deletia]
>>
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:28:12 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Every software maker "dictates their own licensing terms" and it is
> >completely legal.
>
> No, business people (non-criminal type, putatively ethical variety)
> *negotiate* licensing terms. Thugs and gangsters "dictate" licensing on
> "their own terms". Such terms generally being "an offer you can't
> refuse." All on the up and up, so say the consigliere.
$45 for an OS that retails for $200 isn't a bad offer. Hardly what one might
call....how you say...strong-arm monopolistic pricing.
$199.50 for 1-1,000,000 licenses might be considered a monopolistic pricing
scheme - not the small 50 buck token amount that MS was/is getting.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Some Miserable weekend with Windows :(
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:34:41 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:52:24 -0700, Paul Bary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Useability is largely in the eye of the beholder. If you are used to
the Unix way of doing things then Linux is quite familiar. No, it is
not as slick as Windows, although one might ask whether working
reliably and flexibility counts for anything or whether useability is
all that matters even at the expense of capabilities.
I am not sure that reading HOWTO's is less work than randomly poking in
the dark as "steve" had to do to get his ICS working. This seems to be
the general troubleshooting procedure for Windows.
>The Windows world, for all its blemishes is still in a much more
>advanced state. This being said,
I would say it is more slick, not necessarily advanced, as it often
lacks features of other systems. For instance, until very recently ICS
did not exist. Is not having something better than having to read a
HOWTO to figure out how to use it? Is buying a third-party tool like
WinGate somehow better than getting pmfirewall to help you with
ipchains? I guess that depends on your personal criteria.
>I'm sure I'll fail the "true believer" test, be branded a "troll", and
>be told "well Linux isn't for everyone".
Well, you seem to agree that it isn't. And it isn't. Neither is
Windows.
>Hang around here awhile and you'll soon learn the chorus'.
Oh, "steve" knows the chorus all right. He loves to stir it up by
posting slight modifications to the same stories under various
different names.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:34:32 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >[snip]
> >> >Are you saying Congress should be the one to decide
> >> >whether browsers belong in OSes?
> >>
> >> No, he's saying Microsoft should not be the one to decide if Netscape
> >> has an "air supply".
> >
> >Okay, I *understand* that you oppose *Microsoft* making
> >product decision decisions that put Netscape at a
> >disadvantage; I get that part. No need to belabor it.
> >
> >I'm asking *who should* make the decisition. Congress? The
> >courts? An executive agency? Who?
> >
> >I understand the "not Microsoft" part already. :D
>
> Uh... the market?
>
> >> >If all you are saying is that they are the ones
> >> >who *will* do so, then I must sadly concede
> >> >that you may well be right.
> >>
> >> You're rather limited in your consideration of this matter, I think.
> >
> >I'm rubbing your nose in the blindingly obvious fact
> >that the government *is in fact* making product
> >decision decisions here, and you're apparently not
> >finding it easy to square *that* with your own rhetoric.
>
> Well, the court has to decide which Microsoft is going to get which
> products, but it isn't determining how the two Microsofts are going to
> develop them.
>
> >Sure, it's limited, but it won't work if I let you change
> >to subject, will it? :D
>
> You're trolling. And those smilies are annoying. Its like watching
> Bill Gates with that little smirk, spouting complete nonsense and
> expecting people to believe it. How droll.
Thing is...people do believe him. Have you checked the polls recently. Those
warm sweater commercials are quite a success.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:36:17 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Microsoft leads the trend. Microsoft is the trend. I don't see any
> other software vendors lying about their products
Have you checked the screenshots of some of those games? And compared with
the box picture?
------------------------------
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 13:39:23 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:25:50 -0700,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Deadpenguin, when someone selects "medium security" the must know that it is
>not as secure as a higer security level would be. If your are concerned
>about the secutiry of the installation why didn't you install with a higher
>security level test it and then report your findings? You also must realize
>that if you install everything, that all daemons will be installed, that is
>the purpose of the everything option.
Medium is really the only choice to make with
Mandrake because if you select paranoid it turns
off just about everything and things like ppp
don't even work.
>As you know, I run a mixed platform network and have a Linux host serving as
>a gateway/router and firewall. So I used the same webpage as you did to
>test my Linux box to put the lie to your claims.
You're comparing apples and oranges. I did default
installs, not touching anything other than setting
up kppp with my dialup numbers etc.
On a default install, everything I stated is true.
You can check it yourself if you wish.
>Here is the port scan report from http://grc.com
>
>
>Quickly Check for Connectable
>Listening Internet Ports
>Port Probe attempts to establish standard TCP/IP (Internet) connections on a
>handful of standard, well-known, and often vulnerable Internet service ports
>on YOUR computer. Since this is being done from our server, successful
>connections demonstrate which of your ports are "open" and actively
>soliciting connections from passing Internet port scanners.
>
>
>Your computer at IP:
>
> 207.93.32.16
>
>
>Is now being probed. Please stand by. . .
>
>Port
>Service
>Status Security Implications
>
>
>21
>FTP
>Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer)
>exists at this IP address!
>
>23
>Telnet
>Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer)
>exists at this IP address!
>
>25
>SMTP
>Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer)
>exists at this IP address!
>
>79
>Finger
>Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer)
>exists at this IP address!
>
>80
>HTTP
>Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer)
>exists at this IP address!
>
>110
>POP3
>Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer)
>exists at this IP address!
>
>113
>IDENT
>Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer)
>exists at this IP address!
>
>139
>Net
>BIOS
>Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer)
>exists at this IP address!
>
>143
>IMAP
>Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer)
>exists at this IP address!
>
>443
>HTTPS
>Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer)
>exists at this IP address!
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I R A Darth Aggie)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: 25 Jul 2000 13:43:07 GMT
Reply-To: no-courtesy-copies-please
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:50:39 GMT,
Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Colin R. Day wrote:
+
+ > And why does it require a specific packaging standard? Linux has at least
+ > two package managers (dpkg and rpm), and one can also use tar.gz files.
+
+ I've nothing against .tar.gz tar balls - but they're not what I'd call a
+ package. For example, there's no easy way to uninstall a tar ball once it's
+ been installed.
Unless you use something like GNU's stow (1) or convert the tarball
into a package.
James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities - Jean McGuire
To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
<url:http://www.perl.com/CPAN/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
From: dakota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 06:58:11 -0700
>Just like a nix troll to take a nice civil thread and turn it
>black. Of
>course we've heard of firewalls. Let's assess this line of
>reasoning:
>millions of servers are out there that leave these ports open
>and suffer no
>ill effects. That may be true. They may be running perfectly
>secure ftp,
>pop3 etc. daemons on those ports. But they are not as secure
>as a default
>install that forcefully rejects connection attempts on those
>ports.
>
Again, this is were firewalls come in, especially if you wish to
run these services. I have mine set up so only my LAN has access
to these services. They aren't visible to the outside world but
they are running and listening. If that braindead windroid
wanted more security why didn't he take the high security
setting during the install?
>>Wake up troll. Each of this summer's widely publicized DoS
>attacks were
>against nixes. All internet connected hosts are susceptible to
>DoS. It has
>next to nothing to do with the stack and everything to do with
>spending all
>the incoming bandwidth.
The most widely publicized of all DoS attacks seem to be the
Iloveyou virus and its many VB variants, those run only on
winshit boxes.
>Yeah, you're the up to date cracker now aren't you! The patch
>has been
>available for months. Just like you little nix elves we apply
>patches
>religiously too. Or maybe you're lulled into a false sense of
>security just
>because sleep with a stuffed penguin. Perhaps you'd like to
>read about this
>"security hole" that you think would bring a Windows machine to
>it's knees:
>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/fq00-029.asp.
>
I am not a cracker and I knew that vulnerability would
not "bring a windows machine to its knees" unless, of course,
you can find a machine out there with a grossly incompetent
winadmin (that shouldn't be hard to do).
>Most of these bulletins are for legitamate, albeit quite
>involved, exploits.
>The folks that stand up and proclaim "I've found yet another
>GIGANTIC HOLE
>in Windows! I'm the greatest cracker in the world!" really
>need to get a
>life. If they were real security "white hats" then they would
>tell
>Microsoft and work with them to get the patch issued. Instead
>they tell
They usually tell Microsoft, however, it takes microsoft several
weeks to several months to develop a patch.
>folks? Honor them by acting the same way. You'll do a lot
>more for your OS
>that way.
Linux is not "my" OS. Linus holds the copyright. I advocate all
unices.
>Haven't gotten your MCSE yet I see :-) QoS implemented in
>Winsock2. IP
>"masquerading" is known by professionals as NAT. IPSEC and
>filtering are
>under Advanced TCP/IP Options.
Why get an MCSE when I already hold an MCP from Microsoft and a
CNE from Novell, I'm still working on my SCO certification. Do
they support ToS or IPv6, No. And the last time I looked NT and
95/98 leave all ports open on their default install unless you
install some third party nuggett.
>
>You miss the point. That proxy server still has to listen on
>80. If you're
>so worried about it just use a PIX. Oh yeah, I bet you don'y
>know how to
>program one do you? Probably costs more than your car :-)
>
What magical force out there says a proxy server has to listen
on port 80, what about 8080 for example? I don't need a PIX, my
unixware and linux boxes seem to be able to handle my needs just
fine. There you go again with the Microsoft ideal of "Why stick
with what works when there's an upgrade available." I don't know
about that car comment, I own a 1995 BMW 850Ci and a 1995
Thunderbird SC so you tell me.
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
