Linux-Advocacy Digest #994, Volume #27 Wed, 26 Jul 00 17:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Mikey)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Josiah Fizer)
Re: If Linux, which? If not Linux, what? NOT flame-bait! (Dana Booth)
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one of Lenin's
Useful Idiots denies reality (Loren Petrich)
Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came... (Loren Petrich)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (tinman)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("John W. Stevens")
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:38:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
[...]
>I said it was difficult to compete fairly, not impossible. One could even
>argue that Linux is not competing fairly because of its price and licencing
>policies (although it is competing fairly with other alternatives, such as
>FreeBSD). But Linux's success is due to its many advantages overwhelming
>the benifits that other systems have gained through unethical behaviour.
It is difficult to do anything "fairly". You're merely trading off the
subjective characteristic of the term to excuse a complete lack of
ethics. There's nothing unfair about competing by selling services in
support of open source software: there's nothing contrived about it,
there's nothing anti-competitive about it, and there's nothing dishonest
about it. Trade secret licensing for copyrighted software, OTOH, fails
on all three questions. Its easier to steal money than it is to earn
it, so its OK to steal in order to "compete", is that it? Linux's
success is due to its single and unobscured advantage over illegal
anti-competitive behavior: its open source, and therefore doesn't allow
profiteering. This ensures that the benefit of the transaction extends
to the customer, not just the vendor. In Windows, unethical behavior
has overwhelmed the many advantages of the "benefit" of using the
software.
[...]
>>I don't think you realize: he actually thinks he is innocent. He
>>doesn't *recognize* the distinction between competitive and
>>anti-competitive. He refuses to recognize that it even exists. That's
>>the way it works for megalomaniacs.
>
>You've gone further than me in arguing against yourself. I agree with you
>here - but your statement negates your so-called evidence that "He'd rather
>be destroyed than act ethically" - BG believes that he *is* acting
>ethically. You can't have it both ways.
Unfortunately, such is the nature of ethics. Believing you are acting
ethically is not sufficient to be acting ethically. I do, btw, utilize
one of my trademark "conceptual alignments" with the concept of ethics
and morality. Morality is internal: if you believe you are acting
morally, then no other person can gain-say you. Ethics, however, is a
social structure for behavior, not an internal motivation. Bill Gates
would rather be destroyed than acknowledge that his morality is not
ethically acceptable.
I don't think we need to run through a list of historical figures who
believed they were acting ethically and morally. I refuse to
second-guess anybody else's morality. But their ethics are a matter of
social and civil behavior, and are not theirs to define in terms of
"correct" independently of their customers, their partners, their
competitors, and the law.
[...]
>>I never agree to differ; I'll only agree to continue differing.
>
>Perhaps I should argue about your distinction here ... then again, perhaps
>not.
Its simple, I think. Engagement in discussion between people with
different concepts and understandings is the only way for intellectual
(and thus social) progress to occur. I refuse to agree to stop
discussing things while a difference in our opinions exists. I am not
satisfied with an "agreement to disagree", that's all. Only a
commitment to continuing discussions until we agree, or abandoning
discussions with no agreement whatsoever. And you know from my posting
history that I rarely abandon discussions.
>>If you
>>wish to give up the argument, fine. I'm more bored than you, though, so
>>I'll happily harp on about how outrageously despicable Microsoft has
>>been, if you'll prompt me occasionally with questions.
>
>We will keep up the general interest (for ourselves and other readers) by
>varying the topics slightly. But it is always interesting to hear more of
>MS's antics.
What amazes me is how I continually stumble upon new ones I wasn't even
aware of. NT locked up on me, so I lost the web page I was looking at,
but I'll try to find it and post details. It seems that Microsoft,
following the debacle of the Halloween documents (two documents which,
in referring to MS's response to Linux, provide evidence of MS's
strategy to 'de-comoditize public standards and protocols' in order to
allow profiteering on their proprietary "replacements"), launched a huge
organized FUD campaign. Ed Muth (to whom the staff engineer who wrote
the Halloween memos referred inquiries concerning them) had an interview
with ZD in which he practically quoted from a FUD textbook. From a
parody of the circumstances written in response to Mr. Muth's reference
to Linus and the Linux community as "Robin Hood and his Merry Men" (who
didn't understand that it is supposed to take huge capitalization to
write software, according to Ed), Mr. Muth is referred to on the
"Halloween homepage" as "Sheriff Ed".
The Halloween homepage is http://www.opensource.org/halloween
The Robin Hood story (*very* well done, scary even, in its parallel to
the situation) is on http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween4.html
The tales of the FUD swarm after disclosure of the second and last
'Halloween memo' is http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween5.html
The actual interview with Muth by ZDNet is
http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,1014079,00.html
This exert (from 'halloween5.html', above) sums up one of the more
interesting parts of the interview/FUD campaign:
"But what's most notable about this article are the things Sheriff Ed
didn't say. He didn't claim that NT is more robust than Linux. He didn't
claim that NT performs better than Linux running Microsoft's own SMB
file- and print-sharing service. He didn't even claim that NT is
outgrowing Linux in the server market.
"Now, we might hypothesize that Sheriff Ed didn't make any of these
claims because he knows perfectly well none of them are true. Linux
routinely turns in continuous-uptime figures NT administrators dare not
even dream of; it's faster and more efficient in nearly every service
category from Internet to SMB; and Linux is gaining server market share
faster than NT. The trouble with this theory is that Microsoft has never
been famous for reluctance to tell lies when that suits corporate
purposes. Their video fiasco in the DOJ trial is only the most recent
example in which they got caught at it.
"On the other hand, you can bet that after its recent PR blunders
anything Sheriff Ed says about Linux at this point has been very
carefully focus-grouped with representatives from Microsoft's most
important customers. It's therefore almost certain that if Sheriff Ed
didn't make these claims, it's not so much because they'd be untrue as
that he knows they wouldn't be believed."
Next up: It isn't just talk; Microsoft doesn't only have Ziff Davis in
its pocket, but apparently the Gartner Group as well...
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 05:45:17 -0400
Hell, I'm bored...
Steve wrote:
> >So, I do question your motives for startng this thread.
>
> And what does that have to do with the FACT's.
>From your original post
<snip>
Windows 98 se with ICS installed closes all of
those ports and several are in stealth mode.
</snip>
Yeah, like you're worried about ftp & web ports on a Win98 box that
can't *even* serve those functions.
> Try the 2 distributions for yourself and see.
>
> Typical Linvocate.
>
> You guys are really starting to become a sad lot.
What a sad lot we are. We can secure our servers. :P
> I point out some facts, which nobody has been able to dis-prove, and
> don't bother because I really did install both those distributions,
> and you start playing semantic games.
Okay, I won't disprove you. You're right! You can't set up a Linux
box.
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam
possit materiari?
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:42:07 -0700
Bob Hauck wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:04:34 -0700, Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >KDE has the browser tied so tight into the interface that there is no
> >way to remove it without replacing the window manager.
>
> Er, no. kfm and kwm are separate programs. And most Linux distros
> comes with at least three browsers (kfm, netscape, lynx).
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| Codem Systems, Inc.
> -| http://www.codem.com/
On the Sun Sparc Ultra 5 at my desk KDE stops working if kfm is removed.
However it is an older distro that may have had problems above and beyond
half ass support for Sparc.
------------------------------
From: Dana Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: If Linux, which? If not Linux, what? NOT flame-bait!
Date: 26 Jul 2000 20:52:30 GMT
In comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
wkn: Anyway -- comments? Please?
Windows 2000 is the best Linux distribution. Of the BSD's, I prefer OpenBSD
due to security concerns. Just my two cents.
--
=====
Dana Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tacoma, Wa., USA
key at pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one of
Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: 26 Jul 2000 20:54:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
>> 1. Kulkis thinks that the Russian Communist leaders let go
>> of their most productive colony nations, as well as the
>Economics 101.
[on how the Soviet Union had supposedly adopted an economically losing
strategy of supplying raw materials and buying finished products...]
>It nearly bankrupted the country.
News to me. Eastern Europe was their *empire*.
>Have you been to Russia? Have you talked to the people?
>NOTHING HAS CHANGED other than appearances.
Others have, and they have discovered significant differences.
Scott Erb, for example, has.
Consider the fate of the head of Russia's TV network NTV. He has
been arrested -- and released -- and it has been big news. That's a *lot*
different from the Brezhnev years, when he would have mysteriously
"retired" or gotten "transferred", not to mention the Stalin years, in
which he would have "confessed" to trying to spread capitalist lies.
>> 3. Kulkis thinks that democracy will best be served if
>I don't give a fuck about democracy.
>Democracy is 6 wolves and 2 lambs voting on what to have for dinner.
Unfortunately, the alternatives aren't any better.
>> For example, the tobacco industry gives Conservative
>> politicians -- almost all of them Republicans -- many
>Wrong. The majority of the tobacco growing states have been
>Democrat controlled for over a century.
The right wing of the Democratic Party, the part of it that has
tended to become Republican over the last few decades.
>You can always spot the true closet dicatators...they're the ones
>who come out of the woodwork and engage in character assasination
>anytime somebody criticizes Communism, or points at particular
>large-scale psychological operations by the Communists.
From a grove of birch trees it came.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
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: 26 Jul 2000 20:56:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> However, in practice, such "ownership" might as well be the
>> ownership of Pokemon cards. I notice that Mr. Kulkis is not bragging
>> about how he and some of his stockholder friends have forced significant
>> policy changes in the companies that they own stock in.
>Maybe I'm perfectly HAPPY with the current policies of those
>corporations.
And I'm sure you'd keep on being "happy" even if they tried to
get some money to Al Gore's Presidential campaign.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:31:58 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Possibly, but every single resource I have been looking at mentions
> closing those ports completely, as well as others because of the
> internet security risks. I am not familiar with the how and whys, but
> simply am taking the advice of several respected security sites.
>
> I merely pointed out what a default install of 2 popular distributions
> looks like to a hacker on the net trying to look in.
What are the resources? What are their vested interest if any?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:52:58 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:22:30 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:25:50 -0700,
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >So you mean that Mandrake's highest security setting is too secure. That
> >violates your original premis in this thread.
>
>
> Stop splitting hairs.
>
> Mandrake paranoid setting is virtually useless because just about
> everything is either turned off, or not even installed. PPP for
> instance.
>
> >> You're comparing apples and oranges. I did default
> >> installs, not touching anything other than setting
> >> up kppp with my dialup numbers etc.
> >
> >While you may be talking about the Mandrake distribution of the Linux
> >operating system, your subject line is inclusive of all Linux. So any
Linux
> >configuration that proves the invalidity of your premis is valid
evidence.
>
> And in the first sentence I mention the 2 distributions I tested, but
> people around here seem to have a difficult time reading properly.
>
> ***Insert Cheap-Shot****
>
> Maybe it has to do with looking at those crappy Netscape fonts all day
> long.
>
> **end Cheap-Shot*****
>
> >> On a default install, everything I stated is true.
> >> You can check it yourself if you wish.
> >
> >I am not disputing what the defaults installation of that distributions
are.
> >I am disputing your claims as it extends to ALL Linux, which you subject
> >line includes.
>
>
> You guys are really getting desperate...
>
> I point out something and you guys start playing semantics.
>
>
>
>
> >I am also questioning your motive is starting this thread since your have
> >setup your Linux host the way you did by your specific choices. You have
> >reject the more secure configuration and then complain about the lack of
> >security.
>
> See above.
>
> Have you ever tried Mandrake 7.x on the paranoid setting?
>
> If not, I suggest you try it. Almost useless unless you want to spend
> all weekend hand installing and configuring the things it leaves out.
>
> Someone else pointed that out.
>
>
>
>
> >As you know, inetd runs vvery few services like chargen, time, daytime,
and
> >echo. The remainder of the ports it may listen on are not serviced by
> >inetd, rather inetd will execute the deamon that provides the service if
and
> >when a connection is established on one of those ports. If your don't
have
> >the daemond installed then inted would not be able to execute them and
the
> >services would not be available. You can also turn off those services by
> >modifing inetd's configuration.
>
> I am talking default install, for the 10th time.
> I didn't modify Windows 98SE with ics and grc.com show much better
> security for that box. Several other sites said exactly the same
> thing.
>
>
> >You already know that a Linux host can be configured to run any services
you
> >what and restrict it to only accept connections to the services from
certain
> >network interfaces and not others. You can also configure a Linux host
to
> >accept the connections from only some networks or individual hosts. You
can
> >use any combination of these restrictions for any of your services in any
> >combination.
>
> Anything can be configured to do anything.
>
> Default install, the one the majority of new users are going to use.
>
> >The restrictions can be enforced at the any level you prefer. The
> >restrictions can be enforced by the packet filtering firewall. The
> >restrictions can be enforced by proxies. The rescrictions can be
enforsed
> >by tcp wrappers. The restrictions can be enforced by the internet super
> >daemon. The restrictions can be enforce be the individual daemons. --
or
> >by any combination of these and additional methods.
>
> If you are able, or willing to read geek code blocks all day.
>
>
> >So, I do question your motives for startng this thread.
>
> And what does that have to do with the FACT's.
>
> Try the 2 distributions for yourself and see.
>
> Typical Linvocate.
>
> You guys are really starting to become a sad lot.
>
> I point out some facts, which nobody has been able to dis-prove, and
> don't bother because I really did install both those distributions,
> and you start playing semantic games.
>
> Pretty desperate.
>
Yes, I do see you are becoming pretty desperate.
WATCH YOUR MOUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I find the use of the word "geek" to describe an intelligent and skilled
person to be offensive. I will tolerate it somewhat but with ittitation
when it is used in general. However, I will not tollerate it when directed
toward me as you have in your message.
Geek is American slang which means: 1. a freak in a carnival troupe whose
act consists of eating live animals. 2. any freak or pervert. 3. a
degenerate.
Use of that work in no different than using a racial slur.
I expect your appology offered in the same forum as you made your insult.
Using such language, you could yourself in court.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:00:02 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The computer science definition of an "operating system" is moot in the
> > > > consumer world.
> > >
> > > That's absolutely, totally wrong. . . like saying the chemical
> > > properties of iron are moot in the consumer world, such a statement
> > > defies reality. Reality includes things like paint, undercoating and
> > > specialized additives to motor oil.
> >
> > No, it's like saying the chemical *composition* of paint is irrelvant in the
> > consumer world. Which it is.
>
> Oh yeah. You continue to eat those lead paint chips.
As a former house painter, I can assure you that chemical composition of
paint is not irrelevant to the consumer or the painter. One ready example
springs to mind--if you compare Duron's oil base to Ben Moore's, you find
that the latter smells much better as it dries, provides a smoother and
more durable finish, and goes on much easier with far fewer runs or sags
(so although the paint costs more to buy, it costs less in the long run by
reducing labor costs). So the TCO for Ben Moore paint jobs is lower. ("
> > > Yep. But the difference between an operating system, and a distribution
> > > built up around that OS very meaningful to the consumer world. They
> > > just don't understand proper terminology, is all.
> >
> > Very true, but if you're going to talk to such people you need to talk in
> > language *they* understand.
>
> Why? Product tying is still illegal. A browser and an operating system
> are different products. tying them togehter is illegal and jumping off
> on a tangent about what defines an operating systems is irrelevant.
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 26 Jul 2000 20:46:45 GMT
[Windows and Mac groups trimmed.]
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:14:25 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>void wrote:
>
>whoops. I didn't notice that you specified swap. Sticky bit
>keeps the text image in core.
Are you sure? I used Google to try to find a reference one way or
another. I found this:
http://www.netshooter.com/ilug-cochin/archives/jan00/jan00-html/msg00004.html
which seems to back me up, but it's not all that authoritative IMO.
>Original sticky bit implementation only applied to directories
>and executables.
I understand that. But the Solaris sticky(5) page describes its effects
on non-executable regular files and on directories, and says nothing
about executable files.
And if I were a Sun kernel hacker, I'd have ripped out that functionality.
It complicates the VM code *and* it's a performance pessimization.
BTW, I notice you've got the obscenely long sig again. I'd appreciate
it if you'd trim it.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:03:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:30:40 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Said The Ghost In The Machine in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> [...]
>>It's the same sort of illogic that permeates Quicktime 4's interface,
>>which actually looks like a physical product. But why use a
>>thumbwheel with a mouse? It makes little sense.
>>
>>(Have I been an engineer too long? :-) )
>
>NO! No! I say. "Why use a thumbwheel with a mouse?" <Guffaw! It's
>true!>
Ack...that's not *quite* what I meant; I'll have to amend that
to "why rotate a pictorial representation of a thumbwheel with
a mouse"?
(The few times I have used mouse thumbwheels, they hurt my wrist
slightly so I'm not sure I'd want to use one, but at least it
appears slightly useful...)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:02:08 -0600
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote
> >on 21 Jul 2000 03:52:06 -0500
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:44:32 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >[snip our stuff for brevity]
> >
> >> Full perphireal support for No Yes
> >> adcanced periphealls like
> >> scanners, printers, etc...
Umm . . . Wrong. Yes Yes
> >>
> >> Automatic hardware dittection
> >> that work's the first time,
> >> flawlissly No Yes
Wrong again No No
There is no such thing as first time, flawlessly.
> >
> >That's *IT*???
>
> EAZY TO USE GUI No Yes
Wrong againg Yes Yes
>
> INTIGRATED printting from FAX mashine No Yes
Printing from a FAX machine . . . what the heck does that mean?
> >(Besides, Unix was doing printers since before you were
> >born, probably. :-) Ever hear of a Printronix?
> >And that's a relatively recent one.)
>
> Nothing beet's Window's printing you stopid Lie-nux commy.
Nothing . . . except the Mac, every version of Unix (TROFF, the desktop
publishing system of choice for years) since before Windows, and of
course, the NeXT beats Windows so badly that there aren't even shards
left in the frame.
Tim's not to up on history, is he?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 07:03:29 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
matts wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Squid is a shitty proxy server. It's fat, slow and takes way too much
> ram to do the most simple routing. I prefer MS Proxy server a hell of
> lot better than Squid. I only need 64 meg of ram max us NT and MS
> Proxy, and 10 people on a cable modem don't notice the difference
> between direct connect and proxy connect.
Well that's because squid is really intended for big operations like a local
ISP that uses a machine with 768M RAM and 50G of disk. Use tinyproxy for an
example of a little, little, fast proxy.
IanP
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:06:34 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:17:53 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:12:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote:
>>And most Linux distros comes with at least three browsers (kfm,
>>netscape, lynx).
>That makes perfect sense to me. So why can't Windows come with even
>one browser?
If it came with three I think MS would have had less trouble with the
DoJ. Even if two of them were installed by OEMs. Which OEMs wanted to
do but for some reason MS decided that doing so would demean the
"Windows Experience".
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.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
******************************
