Linux-Advocacy Digest #22, Volume #28 Thu, 27 Jul 00 09:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("David Brown")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("David Brown")
Re: Jacques Gye is a WHALE-FUCKING PIRVERT! (was: Re: Windows98) (Jacques Guy)
Re: I had a reality check today :( (Bob Hauck)
Re: Slipping away into time. (mlw)
Re: If Linux, which? If not Linux, what? NOT flame-bait! (Albert Ulmer)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: If Linux, which? If not Linux, what? NOT flame-bait! (Romek Pitera)
Re: Windows98 (Paul Colclough)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Bob Hauck)
Re: "Little Man" Tholen digest, volume 2451750 (Still more Tholen Lies and
misinformation) ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Tholen tholes again digest, volume 2451753.r78xs^-.00000000000001 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:06:48 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft;
<Snip lots about Warp 3.0>
>
>I will generously defer to your well detailed description of events.
>Thank you for taking the time to provide it. Was "Win3.11" = Win3.1 +
>Win32s, to your knowledge?
>
Nope. Win 3.11 was a very rare product. Win 3.1 was widespread. I believe
there was a WfW 3.1, but that was short-lived. With some small additions,
WfW 3.11 was released as the new standard for Windows. Win 3.11 was
released to update Win 3.1, and was slightly cheaper (especially for
upgrading) than WfW 3.11, but once WfW 3.11 was available, very few new PCs
came with anything else.
Win32s was a seperate add-on, that worked with all four Win 3.1x systems (I
don't think it worked on old Win3.0). Generally, software that used Win32s
had the Win32s diskettes along with the software.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:25:34 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message
<[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 personally think Linux is competing fairly, but some people might well be
of the opinion that giving away software is unfair. But, since there have
been free systems around for longer than Linux has been popular, and they
are still around, and (in the case of FreeBSD) are more mature and stable
than Linux, there must be other reasons for Linux's popularity. Being free
(both in terms of beer and speech) is a big help to counter MS's illegal
tactics, but it is not enough on its own. I am not asking for a list of
advantages - we all know what they are - I am just pointing out that Linux
has had to have a number of very significant benifits to be able to compete
fairly with Windoze.
>
> [...]
>>>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.
>
BG believes he is acting morally - that is, he feels that he is doing the
right thing. But he also believes he is acting ethically - that is, he
feels that he is doing what society believes is the right thing (if I have
understood your definitions correctly). He must now admit that MS's actions
have been judged illegal (although he still claims that in fact they are
innocent), but he does not see, and probably never will, that they are
considered unethical. The point is, even if he were to conceed to the DoJ
and accept the breakup, he would be acknowledging illegal activity, but not
unethical activity and certainly not immoral activity.
>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.
>
I see your point. Single-minded stubornness has its benifits, but I think
we can progress intellectually by persuing other lines.
Try posting your Halloween stuff on a new thread for a new topic.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:58:15 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Jacques Gye is a WHALE-FUCKING PIRVERT! (was: Re: Windows98)
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Tim Palmer wrote:
> >
> >> You Lie-nux iddiot. UNIX is crap.
> >
> >Whale cum bakc, Tymm,
>
> Shutt up you discusting pirvert.
Eye luvv ewe, Tymm! *smooch* *smooch*
(A parte: isn't he ever right, folks?)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:28:20 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:29:08 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:35:41 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I suppose commands like PS and top don't need to know how BIG the
>> >[process] table is.
>>
>> Not really. On Linux they read the info about running processes from
>> the /proc filesystem.
>
>Let's use BSD instead, which doesn't have a /proc filesystem. Linux isn't
>Unix.
Ok, how about FreeBSD 4.0?
=============================8<=============================
PROCFS(5) FreeBSD File Formats Manual PROCFS(5)
NAME
procfs - process file system
SYNOPSIS
proc /proc procfs rw 0 0
DESCRIPTION
The process file system, or procfs, implements a view of the system pro
cess table inside the file system. It is normally mounted on /proc, and
is required for the complete operation of programs such as ps(1) and
w(1).
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Slipping away into time.
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:29:21 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Microsoft wins on human factors. Users are comfortable with what they
> know, even if the technology they are using is flawed. They've become
> accustomed to it. Not losing documents, not crashing, not rebooting
> regularly, that's weird. Its uncomfortable for them. Its alien. It
> may take a generation to bury the attitudes of the current crop of
> consumers before Linux and other alternative OSen can gain significant
> ground.
>
> Exhort all you want, but promising a system that works as advertised
> doesn't carry any weight with this generation. Bill Gates is their
> hero, the DOJ is evil, and blue screens and CTRL-ALT-DELETE are as
> common to them as the mouse.
There is also the concept of being cynical. The current generation of
computer users have been told over and over again that the "new" system
is "better, fast, stronger" than the old system. The Microsoft "eat your
young" attitude. "xyz version x.1 is a much improved over the unreliable
x.0, you can trust x.1!" Then, x.2 comes out, and its "xyz version x.2
is much improved over the unreliable x.1, you can trust x.2!"
It is all marketing hype and lies. No one believes it anymore. When I
tell someone they don't need to reboot Linux (or BSD) they look at me
and you can see it in their eyes "yea, right, they always say that."
Just the other day, I had a problem with my Linux box, the CDROM wasn't
working. The first thing someone said to me was that I should reboot and
"that will fix it, I do it all the time." Turns out it was a defective
CDROM. Then I thought about the poor guy who reboots "all the time,"
that would drive me INSANE! but people have come to accept it as
inevitable.
The real key to getting rid of Microsoft is not a GUI, not some ease of
use BS, not even more applications, they will come, the real key is to
convince people that rebooting is unacceptable, and that rebooting does
not "fix" anything, it just makes the problem go away until the next
time.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
From: Albert Ulmer <[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: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:34:13 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So, question 1: which of the modern releases is likely to install easily on
> a laptop with about 0.5GB of disk space, 24MB of RAM, and a parallel port
> CD-ROM drive?
Apart from the parallel-port CD-ROM drive any Linux distribution should
do. I think Debian has a set of boot-disks which contain practically all
kernel modules, including the ones for parallel-port CD-ROM drives.
> Secondly, about free "Unix"es in general... I'm a very busy systems and
> networks consultant. I want it to work; I frankly don't have the time for
> a voyage of discovery (and no, I don't indend to pose as a Unix "expert").
> Maybe some day when I retire...
If you want it crystal clear, you definitely want to try out Debian. I
know of no other Linux distribution with such a logical structure.
> I mostly do non-Unix systems administration. I have no problem
> getting down and dirty, but I've got no time to play hide-and-seek with the
> docs. If it's not in the man pages, it's not in the right place, dammit.
Indeed, IMHO Debian has all the necessary information organized in the
man pages. If that is not enough, you can be sure to find a wealth of
additional info in /usr/share/doc.
> I hear Slackware is a favorite of relatively knowledgeable Linux users. Is
> it really any better documentation-wise?
I don't think so.
> Anyway -- comments? Please?
Grab the latest set of boot-disks from your nearest Debian GNU/Linux
mirror and start from there. I'm quite confident that you'll like your
Debian experience. If not, IMHO you can also try Mandrake Linux, which
is said to be quite good as well. IMNSHO, avoid Corel Linux at all cost,
it's nothing more than Debian with broken KDE-libraries and a fancy
installer that wipes your hard disk when you tell it not to...
best wishes,
Albert.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 07:29:20 -0400
JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >> 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.
>>
>> Bullshit slick marketing generally is. That's why it is unethical. If
>> it didn't work, it would merely be stupid. Polls have no value except
>> to the ignorant. The tide is definitely turning for poor Bill. And we
>> would hope this is a blow to the general encouragement of ignorance
>> which such practices, and you, promote.
>Yes the tide is definitely turning. Worst case scenario-this time next year
>he'll be about...dare I say...twice as wealthy.
>And twice as beloved by the average Joe.
And then what happens is louder and public discussion in congress and
elsewhere about the stability of a democracy where one man controls wealth
greater then the combined wealth 80% of other citizens. -- And the question
has been kicking around some congressional offices for a couple of years now.
Say, how much does M$ pay you to be here -- or are you just psychotic and
looking for someone to listen to your drivel?
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 07:18:27 -0400
Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
<snip>
>> You can even read a copy of the relevant laws for yourself at
>> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.htm
>Can you please provide some specific examples ? I ahve little patience for
>legal bullshit at the best of times.
Is that because it requires logical thought and you have trouble thinking, or
is a reading disorder?
Say, can you tell us how much M$ pays for trolls?
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: Romek Pitera <[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: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:53:06 +0100
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, James Stutts wrote:
>
> Wouter Coene wrote in message ...
> >According to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >> I hear Slackware is a favorite of relatively knowledgeable Linux users.
> Is
> >> it really any better documentation-wise?
> >
> >Not really. As for the Linux'es, Debian has the best documentation. But it
> >doesn't even get _near_ the quality of the OpenBSD documentation.
> >
> >The major advantage of Slackware (and the reason I use it) is because it's
> >much more UNIX-like than Debian/Redhat/Suse etc etc..
>
> Slack also doesn't keep their code base right at the bleeding edge. Fewer
> trinkets=fewer problems.
> I've got the latest Slack running on my old 486 laptop. Runs well.
Stability is one of the reasons behind my choice of slackware. I also
tried to keep away from distros leaning towards 'point and click'
approach. You might wish to have a look at 'how small can slackware get?'
thread in alt.os.linux.slackware.
In terms of documentation I think that some of it it is very much the
same as for any linux distro ie man pages, HOWTOs and README files. Any
general linux book has stuff relevant to slackware (and other distros
too). Some books dealing with UNIX also include linux related stuff and
linux examples which are often slackware specific. On top of that there're
internet resources. Overall, IMHO the resources are ample for slackware.
Someone mentioned Solaris. I found installation of Solaris 7 and 8 on x86
desktops (no experience with laptops) easier and faster than M$ Win95
(TM), with no hassle X-Windows configuration. alt.solaris.x86 would be
a place to make inquiries regarding your particular hardware. You can get
a list of compatible hardware and minimum requirements from www.sun.com.
There are other web pages about laptops with solaris, but I can't find the
details at the moment. Although an awful lot of documentation is provided
in electronic version, you might find less advice on internet when stuck
with some problem. I might be wrong, but I feel that linux would be a
better choice in this case.
R Pitera
Direct your response to: r dot pitera at qmw dot ac dot uk
Direct spam or unsolicited commercial e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colclough)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 21 Jul 2000 13:18:22 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:04:26 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>One: never install to C: if you have ANY other partitions available.
>>When windows dies (and IT WILL), you aren't stuck with having to do
>>ALL of your re-installs all at once .... some of the apps will work
>>if you, say, make a habit of always installing to E:\apps\whatever.
>
>Don't these apps still need to be reinstalled if something happens
>to the Registry?
If they rely on the registry (like 99% of apps) then yes, otherwise no.
Thing is, linux may use the "outdated" /etc structure and text files, but
it's easily backed up, contains no hardware dependant data and can be
edited with a real bog-standard editor over a serial link. Not to mention
you know exactly what files are for whats programs rather than searching
through a few hundred meg registry.
The thing that really getting on my nerves now is shareware programs that
insist on placing keys at seemingly random places in the registry to keep
you from going beyond you 7/14/30 day trial - these are clogging up the
registry, are in completely the wrong places and have some of the stupidest
and midleading names I've found so far.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:50:37 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 05:46:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>unpatched versions of bind but no other services at all can still be
>>rooted and the cracker can still get a shell on the system.
>
> You still need something to connect to the cracker.
Yeah, but "something" can be pretty much anything that can open a
network socket. From "adm-bind_exp.c":
=============================8<============================
* ADM named 8.2/8.2.1 NXT remote overflow - horizon/plaguez
*
* "a misanthropic anthropoid with nothing to say"
*
* thanks to stran9er for sdnsofw.c
*
* Intel exploitation is pretty straightforward.. should give you a remote
* shell. The shellcode will break chroot, do a getpeername on all open
* sockets, and dup to the first one that returns AFINET.
=============================8<============================
This code does not even bother to look for telnetd, which you can
verify for yourself by getting it from securityfocus.com.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Little Man" Tholen digest, volume 2451750 (Still more Tholen Lies and
misinformation)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:50:08 -0400
"Little man" Tholen tholes, we suffer:
> Jim "little boy" Stuyck writes:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Typical invective.
Typical invective, "little man".
> Still engaging in the lowest level of discussion, I see.
Still engaging in the lowest level of discussion, I see, "little man".
> No surprise there.
No surprise there, "little man".
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen tholes again digest, volume 2451753.r78xs^-.00000000000001
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:50:08 -0400
Here's today's Tholen digest. Once again he ignores all the unresolved
issues, such as his alleged reciprocation, his illogic regarding his
frequenting of "these precincts", how he tried to speak for everyone else,
his parroting, the chat with the "TPTB", his use of the word "necessarily"
inappropriately, and so on. It must be a cold day in Hades because the fact
is that there was a "chat with TPTB". There is a "TPTB" at UofH to have a
chat with, Tholen's pontification to the contrary notwithstanding. Notice
how he never produces any evidence. Typical Tholen, typical nonsense.
The digest [im]proper: [0] Thanks for reading!
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[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: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:56:18 -0400
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:56:26 GMT, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Se?n ? Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Microsoft doesn't force you to use IE as your primary Web browser. You
>> can use it to download Navigator and never use again, if that's what
>> you want. So what's the problem?
>
>Microsoft's repeated claims that you couldn't remove Explorer without
>irreversibly crippling Windows, for one.
>
I don't know about "irreversibly", but removing IE would most
certainly cripple Windows. Lots of applications depend on IE
components, which for a long time have been documented as part of the
Windows Platform SDK. For that reason alone removing them would
cripple Windows, not to mention the fact that the Explorer desktop
shell now depends on them as well (in fact, Win98Lite simply replaces
Explorer with the old Win95 version that didn't use IE).
But regardless of all that, my point stands; Microsoft does *NOT*
force you to use IE as your primary Web browser. You can't uninstall
IE (without resorting to things like Win98Lite), but so what? There's
lots of things you don't use but you can't uninstall.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
