Linux-Advocacy Digest #141, Volume #29 Sat, 16 Sep 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft (Thomas Corriher)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (lyttlec)
Re: Unix more secure, huh? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (Bob Hauck)
Re: Unix more secure, huh? (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (Gary Hallock)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux ("Rev. Don Kool")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux ("Rev. Don Kool")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Corriher)
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], abuse@[127.0.0.1]
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:59:03 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 07:55:37 GMT,
Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So, part of what pac says is true - the DoD can buy just about
>anything - unfortunately they view an OS, that imho, has better
>network mapping, node management and traffic analysis, as
>"radical and unstable" (yeah NOT!!)
>
>THIS is why I'm getting out in 6 months.
Steve, I feel for you. I know what it is like to deal with
idiots. All your skills and knowledge are useless when your
managers decide that they will make all technical decisions
based on marketing propaganda.
I was talking to a guy who is outside the technical community
last night. He told me that he supported everything Microsoft
does, because Microsoft is "an American company". Does this mean
that everything done by Americans is always honorable and legal?
This shows just how powerful a company's marketing machine can be.
It is a sad situation. I wonder if the leaders in the U.S.
military are dumb enough to believe that supporting Microsoft is
actually patriotic. Would they purchase bombers that crashed
frequently and unexpectedly simply because they were "made in
America"? I would hope not, and would hope that the military
would have higher standards.
Again, I feel for you Steve. When someone states that Linux
cannot be used because it would diminish the security and
stability of a NT network... what can you say? How can one
honestly reply to that without expressing the person has no
comprehension of the subject and is "unfit for duty". I am
certain that the statement: "You have no *(#$ clue what you
are talking about, sir" would not be taken kindly in the
Navy (even if you said "sir"). How can one even begin to
reason with someone who is your manager, but has no
comprehension of the subject matter; and has already decided
"the right way" to do things? You can't do it. You have
to play "whipping boy" since all the unavoidable problems
are "your fault". Your problems are "your attitude" since
you never learned about management's "right way" of doing
things. This may sound like I am saying that you cannot
win. That is because it is exactly what I am saying.
Steve it gets worse.... :(
If you think you can escape stupidity by enlisting (cute, eh?)
in corporate America, then you should brace yourself for a
big surprise. You will often see the same stupidity. Many
times the biggest difference is that you will see your managers
wearing ties instead of rank.
I have heard of banks utilizing NT for the "enhanced security"
(no shit!). No doesn't that scare the piss out of you? The
problem of stupidity is pervasive, so you cannot escape it.
The degree of it in governmental agencies may be significantly
greater, but it still exists everywhere. I have heard that
the greatest damage done on the world of IT by Microsoft is
a pervasive lowering of standards. I agree with that statement.
I think it applies to both technology and the overall
competence of "technology professionals". That title is used
very liberally nowadays. Ever hear of cases when MCSEs have to
have IRQs explained to them? Should we laugh about it or cry
about it? Many of the "A+" techs fall into the same category,
because they learned everything from a book. For instance,
they like to argue that BIOS stands for "Basic Input Output
System". This comes from a mistake in the A+ study guides, and
it is FAR from the only one. Certain companies would probably
like to keep the myth alive because of the reference to "basic".
For those that do not know: BIOS stands for BINARY Input Output
System. A MCSE wanted to argue this point with me not long ago.
Sad... My provider Bellsouth is now offering "secure PPP
connections utilizing the security of a Windows NT network"
(not VPN - PPP). Stop and think about that for a moment.
Just try not to laugh. Can you do it?
One a lighter note: The stupidity does help me feel better
about myself. This stuff helps me to feel confident that
my knowledge makes me much more qualified than the average
technician. I love to read many of the security bulletins
in the Net because they leave me feeling very special.
Steve, it seems like you do not have long to wait before
you receive your Navy career benefits. I strongly suggest
waiting it out. There is no dishonor in waiting to receive
the benefits that you have earned over your years of service.
Running to corporate America will not guarantee that the
stupidity situation will improve. Wait out your time, so
that your benefits provide you an economic safety net.
"Never test the depth of the water with both feet at
the same time"
-- Confucius
--
From the desk of Thomas Corriher
The real email address is:
corriher at bellsouth.
net
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 10:58:07 -0400
John Doherty wrote:
> In article <8prik2$e425e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nigel Feltham"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Nothing except a rocket permanently aimed at their head office
> > will ever keep microsoft honest :-)
>
> My brother has been calling for air strikes on MS for at least a couple
> of years now.
>
> If the Justice Department doesn't get 'em, the Air Force can. ;-)
Does the Air Force use Microsoft products? Would this make it
loath to bomb MS, or would it make it all the more willing? :-)
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:36:33 GMT
Ermine Todd wrote:
>
> The device driver software development kit (DDK) is available for NT. When
> you've actually managed to write a kernel level driver and have it installed
> in the system then you potentially be worth listening to.
>
> --ET--
>
You miss the point. The point is to *bypass* the OS and therefore the
DDK. I did a short Google search and came up with dozens of hits of
people doing just that! Some were even commercial products (things that
wanted to do fast DMA for video, games, large data base copies, etc.).
For an example of the type (not specific) virus look at
<http://lunateks.com/lunateks/963717948/>.
(The 95/98 code I wrote turns out to be an improvement on the Chernobyl
virus. Oh Well. )
(
Later : I found the basic code for the NT stuff I was writing at a site
on the web. Real cute. Someone has lots more time than I do. How to
steal NT Ring0 from NT Ring3. How to use NT Ring0 to jump out of NT and
run your virus and then jump back into NT. How to wipe the CMOS on the
fly ( Your system is dead ... period). How to get an infected file pass
the basic security checks. The level of technical knowledge required to
do anything with this code is way beyond the normal script kiddy. You
need to know how to use a hex editor, calculate complex checksums, speak
Russian (or Ukranian).
> "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Nik Simpson wrote:
> > >
> > > "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Nik Simpson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Ermine Todd III wrote:
> > > > > > In otherwords SuperRoot held by MS and its "trusted" partners.
> > > Otherwise
> > > > > > you couldn't apply service packs which, on occasion, do replace
> SYSTEM
> > > > > > functionality.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bullshit. If something cannot be loaded/unloaded through the normal
> > > > > mechanisms then you have to reboot for the change to take effect. In
> > > other
> > > > > words if foo.sys is soemthing that can't be stopped and started on a
> > > running
> > > > > system, the SP install renames foo.sys to foo.sys.old and puts a new
> > > version
> > > > > of foo.sys on the disk which is loaded during a reboot. No need for
> any
> > > > > magin "SuperRoot" except in your limited imagination.
> > > > >
> > > > BZZZT Wrong. If you have full system priveleges (Ring0 on the Pentium)
> > > > you can do anything, including modifying running programs, and have
> the
> > > > changes take effect immediately. Pentium Ring 0 Changes do not require
> a
> > > > reboot. Root and Administrator are demigods. Kernel is GOD. Kernel can
> > > > change your program while it is running. Kernel can make Administrator
> > > > cease to exist.
> > >
> > > Sigh, have you ever installed a Service Pack on NT, if you had, you'd
> know
> > > just how wrong you are about the installation process and what Microsoft
> > > does. But of course you clearly not one to let a few facts get in the
> way of
> > > an arguement.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, at least you make a distinction between Nt and operating
> systems.
> > > > Personaly I have built a half dozen or so operating systems. How many
> > > > have you built?
> > >
> > > As an RV at Bell Labs in the 80s I worked on early System V and have
> quite a
> > > lot of experience, just what experience do you have.
> > >
> > So why don't you know the differnce between "root" and "System"? I do
> > agree that System V, Linux, and other Unix variants do make it difficult
> > for any mere mortal to get System privileges. NT, OTH, does not. Unless
> > you show that the code in ring0.exe published by MS in its code base
> > doesn't work.
> > > --
> > > Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:15:37 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:33:58 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>http://www.cert.org/incident_notes/IN-2000-10.html
>
>You are not the only one who is laughing, hundreds of other hackers do the
>same.
Yeah, they're laughing at CERT.
The vunlerabilities noted at this URL are months old. Patches have
been available for months as well. If you get hacked via these, you
haven't been paying attention. Which isn't to say that lots of folks
don't pay attention...how many sites still run versions of IIS that are
vulnerable to the ".." path bug, which was fixed long ago?
Which is about par for the course with CERT.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:15:39 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 04:04:11 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>RedHat and Linus himself seemed to think it was. Somehow, the Linux
>slashdotters got it into their minds that the Mindcraft tests (both)
>were trumped up and false.
The Mindcraft tests showed a real problem, but one that would only very
rarely be an issue in a production system. The test was carefully
designed to highlight a particular strength of NT relative to Linux.
It was not "rigged", in the sense that the results weren't faked, but
the thing that was tested was not chosen at random. The whole thing
was a marketing exercise, nothing more.
So you are correct that Mindcraft wasn't "false", although it was very
narrowly focused on one aspect of web serving performance (static web
pages, SMP machines, load-balanced network cards) and different results
are obtained if any of the conditions are changed. What was false was
the simplfied interpretation given it by Microserfs, such as yourself,
which was that Linux "has poor network performance". At the very least
that is a vast overstatement of what Mindcraft actually showed, which
was that in certain SMP configurations NT used the network cards more
efficiently. It is the case that tests by others showed the reverse
was true in non-SMP configurations, which are far more common.
>Any intelligent objective person would see that they were clearly
>legitimate and demonstrated several critical weaknesses and poor design
>in Linux.
Yes, they were weaknesses. Yes, they were addressed for 2.4. But no,
they were not "critical" for the vast majority of users. An
intelligent person would not try to use a single benchmark to indict
the design of an entire system.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:37:12 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:33:58 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: And that suppose to diminish the validity of the actual news how? Maybe you
: should look at the following link, CERT released the warning about Linux and
: DDoS on Friday:
:
: http://www.cert.org/incident_notes/IN-2000-10.html
Oh wow. It cites two vulnerabilities that have had patches available for
quite some time, all within 24-48 hours after being found.
How about all of the Windoze users out there that have (and continue) to
fall prey to Netbus|BO|SubSeven|remote access trojan du jour? My firewall
and IDS logs here at home can attest to the widespread use of those. My
machines get scanned ALL THE TIME.
Here's a nickel. Go get a new arguement.
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:11:48 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:00091601145303.05150@pc03...
>
> > And now, a long time later, a similar benchmark shows a much better
> > behaviour by the Linux network stack. It still sucks a bit, though.
>
> Please post a URL, I haven't read about this. I've been taking your
> word for it, but I would like to read the specifics.
www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/web99-20000501-00028.html
www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/web99-20000626-00054.html
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:45:04 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 05:31:06 GMT,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
: > And now, a long time later, a similar benchmark shows a much better
: > behaviour by the Linux network stack. It still sucks a bit, though.
:
: Please post a URL, I haven't read about this. I've been taking your
: word for it, but I would like to read the specifics.
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/
: > And why is fixing a problem a joke?
:
: Because it's an inherent design problem in Linux.
Oh, and can we assume you've read through all of the networking code in
the Linux kernel to verify this? What credentials do you have that make
you an authority on this subject? I'd be very interested in seeing
those credentials. They must be pretty impressive, after all, you speak
in such absolutes.
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 02:58:13 +1000
"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> >You can change the ownership to *yourself* (if you have the "take
> :> >ownership" permission), but you can't change the ownership to a
specific
> :> >user.
> :>
> :> I would think that is something an admin might want to do once in a
> :> while.
> :
> : Why ?
> :
> : If the situation arose where file ownership had to be given to another
> : user, the admin would probably just temporarily give them "Take
Ownership"
> : priveleges.
>
> Why ?
>
> As an admin, why would I possibly want to give user X such power,
> even temporarily, to solve such an incredibly basic problem?
What's the problem ?
> Hell,
> if we're going to be so lax with security systems, why don't I just
> hand anyone who asks the Administrator password as well. "Hey, I
> want to upgrade my copy of ICQ, can I have the admin password
> please?"
What's the connection here between what you're talking about and what I'm
talking about ? Seriously - I just can't understand _what_ you mean.
------------------------------
From: "Rev. Don Kool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:41:08 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> Rev. Don Kool explained:
> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> Rev. Don Kool pointed out:
> >> >Gary Hallock wrote:
> >> >> "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
[...snip...]
> >> That proves Linux has not passed.
> > Indeed it does. It also proves that LINUX is not a UNIX system.
> No. It would do so if it had been submitted and failed.
> For example, you probably have never had a DNA exam to prove you
> are your father's son. By your logic, you are not your father's son.
Without the facts you make the rather large assumption that LINUX
would pass. I prefer to withold judgement until someone has enough
faith in the system to submit it for testing.
> >> You said Linux can not pass.
> > I certainly did state that fact, Bob.
> My name is not Bob, if you don't mind. And if you say that's a fact,
> again, you should provide *some* proof.
Submit it and watch it fail. You'll have all the proof you want,
Bob.
Hope this helps,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:49:46 GMT
"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ermine Todd wrote:
> >
> > The device driver software development kit (DDK) is available for NT. When
> > you've actually managed to write a kernel level driver and have it installed
> > in the system then you potentially be worth listening to.
> >
> > --ET--
> >
> You miss the point. The point is to *bypass* the OS and therefore the
> DDK. I did a short Google search and came up with dozens of hits of
> people doing just that! Some were even commercial products (things that
> wanted to do fast DMA for video, games, large data base copies, etc.).
> For an example of the type (not specific) virus look at
> <http://lunateks.com/lunateks/963717948/>.
> (The 95/98 code I wrote turns out to be an improvement on the Chernobyl
> virus. Oh Well. )
> (
>
>
> Later : I found the basic code for the NT stuff I was writing at a site
> on the web. Real cute. Someone has lots more time than I do. How to
> steal NT Ring0 from NT Ring3. How to use NT Ring0 to jump out of NT and
> run your virus and then jump back into NT. How to wipe the CMOS on the
> fly ( Your system is dead ... period). How to get an infected file pass
> the basic security checks. The level of technical knowledge required to
> do anything with this code is way beyond the normal script kiddy. You
> need to know how to use a hex editor, calculate complex checksums, speak
> Russian (or Ukranian).
lyttlec, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but thinking that, by installing
a driver and having that driver bust into NT's kernel and do mean things
is a design flaw in NT simply makes you look like more of an idiot than
you already do.
Anything running in kernel-mode is trusted on just about any system you
look at (include most Unixes). Once you're in the kernel space you
can pretty much usurp control from the kernel and have free range of
the system. There are kernel "root kits" for Unix, NT, and just about
every other server-class OS. I don't think Windows 2000 yet, but there's
nothing stopping anyone from doing it.
On trusted-class systems that have something equivalent to B or A class
ratings on the TSEC scale will have trusted kernels that check and
prevent root kits and kernel kits from taking control and replacing normal
kernel operation.
Writing something like this (taking over the system, flashing the BIOS with
meaningless junk and jumping back into the kernel) on any non-trusted-class
OS wouldn't be particularily difficult for someone who has ever written
a device driver. NT is not alone in this vuleneratbility. OSes in the
same class as NT (non-trusted, such as all windows, dos, Linux, Solaris,
BSD, Tru64 Unix and just about every non-Trusted unix and every other OS,
MacOS, etc) allows you to install drivers that could potentially usurp
control of the kernel.
However, on just about every worth-while system (NT/2K, Unix) that has
any type of security infrastructure doesn't allow anyone but an administrative
or root-type user to install devices or their drivers, so this whole discussion
is irrelevent.
Once you get root or admin on a Unix or NT box, you pretty much have free reign
to wreak all sorts of havoc, everyone in this group agrees.
So just give it up, this isn't some "l33t NT hax0r" or anything.
-Chad
>
> > "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Nik Simpson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Nik Simpson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > Ermine Todd III wrote:
> > > > > > > In otherwords SuperRoot held by MS and its "trusted" partners.
> > > > Otherwise
> > > > > > > you couldn't apply service packs which, on occasion, do replace
> > SYSTEM
> > > > > > > functionality.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bullshit. If something cannot be loaded/unloaded through the normal
> > > > > > mechanisms then you have to reboot for the change to take effect. In
> > > > other
> > > > > > words if foo.sys is soemthing that can't be stopped and started on a
> > > > running
> > > > > > system, the SP install renames foo.sys to foo.sys.old and puts a new
> > > > version
> > > > > > of foo.sys on the disk which is loaded during a reboot. No need for
> > any
> > > > > > magin "SuperRoot" except in your limited imagination.
> > > > > >
> > > > > BZZZT Wrong. If you have full system priveleges (Ring0 on the Pentium)
> > > > > you can do anything, including modifying running programs, and have
> > the
> > > > > changes take effect immediately. Pentium Ring 0 Changes do not require
> > a
> > > > > reboot. Root and Administrator are demigods. Kernel is GOD. Kernel can
> > > > > change your program while it is running. Kernel can make Administrator
> > > > > cease to exist.
> > > >
> > > > Sigh, have you ever installed a Service Pack on NT, if you had, you'd
> > know
> > > > just how wrong you are about the installation process and what Microsoft
> > > > does. But of course you clearly not one to let a few facts get in the
> > way of
> > > > an arguement.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, at least you make a distinction between Nt and operating
> > systems.
> > > > > Personaly I have built a half dozen or so operating systems. How many
> > > > > have you built?
> > > >
> > > > As an RV at Bell Labs in the 80s I worked on early System V and have
> > quite a
> > > > lot of experience, just what experience do you have.
> > > >
> > > So why don't you know the differnce between "root" and "System"? I do
> > > agree that System V, Linux, and other Unix variants do make it difficult
> > > for any mere mortal to get System privileges. NT, OTH, does not. Unless
> > > you show that the code in ring0.exe published by MS in its code base
> > > doesn't work.
> > > > --
> > > > Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: "Rev. Don Kool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:53:50 GMT
Gary Hallock wrote:
> "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > Gary Hallock wrote:
> > > "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > > > While you're trying to learn, you should learn that LINUX is not a
> > > > UNIX system in any way, shape or form. LINUX cannot pass the
> > > >
> >
> > > Really?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > And you would know this how?
> >
> > I checked with The Open Group. LINUX doesn't appear in their lists
> > of UNIX systems.
> You really are clueless, aren't you. Of course Linux doesn't appear in the Open
> Group list. That's what I said. But that in no way proves, or even hints at
> the possibility, that Linux can not pass the certification required to be a UNIX
> system.
LINUX isn't even an OS, my child. It is only a kernel. Despite
your odd emotional attachment to LINUX, a kernel isn't going to pass
UNIX certification.
> > > If you are so knowledgeable about
> > > Linux and Unix then why do you insist on using Windows 98?
> > Because I have a PC at home and that's what PCs are for.
> So, in other words, you are a Windows troll who has nothing better to do than
> post to newsgroups trashing Linux.
I don't trash LINUX, my son. It is a good little system for
students, hobbyists and tinkerers. I merely pointed the original
poster to a more suitable newsgroup for his questions.
> > > The fact is that
> > > Linux has not been certified. There is no reason why it couldn't be if
> > > someone wanted to spend the money to have it done. If you know otherwise,
> > > then please explain what Linux is lacking.
> > Supporters who believe in it enough to pony up the money to try and
> > have it certified as a UNIX system. What it of course doesn't lack
> > is a large number of adherents who mislabel it a UNIX system.
> It most likely will happen at some point, given the commercial interest in Linux
> these days.
What color is the sky in your world, Gary?
Yours in the glory that is our Lord Jesus Christ,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
