Linux-Advocacy Digest #904, Volume #29 Sat, 28 Oct 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Hullo, Claire, James? Here's another dork for you (lyttlec)
Re: Can Linux "cut and paste" ? ("none")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Darin Johnson)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (Gary Hallock)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Oracle say's Microsoft no good! (sfcybear)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hullo, Claire, James? Here's another dork for you
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 01:03:56 GMT
A more useful response would be to surf the web and post links to code
that *fixed* the security hole.
James wrote:
>
> Jacques,
>
> I seem to have hit a nerve in implying that you are acting like a spoilt
> brat. And maintain this is nothing that a good spanking cannot solve. I
> bet you still live with mummy & daddy - even though you tout yourself as a
> 56 year old senior citizen.
>
> BTW, any shithead - such as yourself - can surf the net looking for problems
> with an OS. How about making a DESKTOP comparison between Linux and Win2k
> yourself - and posting your own experience.
>
> James :-)
>
> "Jacques Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Security?
> >
> > PC Week:
> > [ http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,2404702,00.html ] C2
> rating
> > at
> > last! (Ed Curry gets a mention)
> >
> > LWN: [ http://lwn.net/daily/esr-cracked.html ] windows2000test cracked
> >
> > ZDNet:
> > [ http://www.zdnet.com/pccomp/features/excl0298/shame/picks.html ]
> Usability
> > Hall
> > of Fame, Hall of Shame
> >
> > Net4TV:
> > [ http://net4tv.com/voice/story.cfm?StoryID=1823 ] WebTV Security Breach:
> > Hijack
> > Code Can Forward Stored Mail
> >
> > 00-Jan ZDNet:
> > [ http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2422687,00.html ] How to
> Steal
> > 2,500 Credit Cards
> >
> > 00-Jan SecurityPortal:
> > [ http://securityportal.com/cover/coverstory20000117.html ] Linux vs
> Microsoft:
> > Who
> > solves security problems faster?
> >
> > 00-Jan ZDNet:
> > [ http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/1,5859,2429536,00.html ]
> Raidnow:
> > What's Wrong With Microsoft Security?
> >
> > 00-Mar CNet:
> > [ http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1007-200-1563391.html ] Curador credit card
> > number
> > hack
> >
> > 00-Mar ZDNet:
> > [
> >
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2473689,00.html?chkpt=zdhpnews
> 01 ]
> > Hackers got Bill Gates' credit card info
> >
> > Assorted vulnerabilities
> >
> > CEGadgets:
> > [ http://www.cegadgets.com/artsusageP.htm ] CE's ActiveSync 2.x Allows
> > Unauthorized
> > Access to Your NT Password
> >
> > Microsoft:
> > [ http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/fq00-015.asp ] Clip
> art
> > vulnerability!
> >
> > 00-Apr ZDNet:
> > [ http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2543490,00.html ]
> Frontpage
> > backdoor admission
> >
> > 00-Apr LWN Eric Raymond:
> > [ http://lwn.net/2000/0420/a/esr-fp.html ] Microsoft -- Designed for
> Insecurity
> >
> > 00-May ZDNet:
> > [ http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0%2C4586%2C2570727%2C00.html ]
> > Microsoft's
> > 'Clippy' a security nightmare?
> >
> > 00-Aug VNUNet:
> > [ http://www.vnunet.com/News/1109106 ] Microsoft Active Directory
> problems
> > linger
> >
> > 00-Oct CNet:
> > [ http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/10/03/nashaq.idg/index.html ]
> Hacker
> > warns
> > Nasdaq.com of security holes - October 3, 2000
> >
> > Gerrie Mansur, one of the leaders of Dutch hacking group Hit2000, gained
> > access to the global.asa file from the Web servers of the news sites. This
> file
> > regulates who gets access to what applications on the server. The file
> also
> > defines what the applications can do and contains the global settings for
> the
> > applications, as well as start-up and shutdown routines. Nasdaq's
> global.asa
> > file
> > contains the password to the site's main database, Mansur said.
> >
> > The news sites run on IIS (Internet Information Server) software from
> Microsoft.
> >
> > Viruses, worms and e-mail trojans
> >
> > 00-Jan CNet:
> > [ http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1522362.html ] Windows 2000 virus
> > detected
> >
> > SARC:
> > [ http://www.sarc.com/avcenter/venc/data/sub.seven.20.html ] SubSeven
> (Windows
> > trojan)
> >
> > 00-Mar Wired:
> > [ http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,35045,00.html ] WebTV's
> > 'Non-Virus'
> > Virus
> >
> > 00-May TMF:
> > [ http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?id=1180128007357046&sort=postdate ]
> > RFC1521 on
> > email attachments
> >
> > As you can see, by executing an attachment using an interpreter of some
> type
> > (whether it
> > be IE, Word, VB, or a native executable), Outlook is exposing a well known
> > security
> > hole
> > that is specifically warned against in the MIME specification.
> >
> > 00-May ZDNet:
> > [ http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0%2C4586%2C2572469%2C00.html ]
> NewLove
> > bug
> > nastier than ILOVEYOU
> >
> > 00-May Wired:
> > [ http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,36439,00.html ] Worm Wreaked
> Gov't
> > Havoc
> >
> > 00-May ABC:
> > [ http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/Virus000526.html ] `Killer
> > Resume'
> > Doing a Job on E-Mail Systems
> >
> > 00-Aug Cnet:
> > [ http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-201-2549828-0.html ] Consumers open
> email to
> > targeted virus attacks
> >
> > Internet Explorer holes
> >
> > CNN:
> > [ http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9911/23/active.scripting/index.html ]
> > Protection against IE holes may create more problems than solutions
> >
> > 00-Apr CNet:
> > [ http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1717460.html ] Microsoft browser
> bug may
> > access private files
> >
> > 00-May Peacefire:
> > [ http://www.peacefire.org/security/iecookies/ ] Internet Explorer "Open
> Cookie
> > Jar"
> >
> > Any Web site that uses cookies to authenticate users or store private
> > information --
> > including Amazon.com, HotMail, Yahoo Mail,
> > DoubleClick, MP3.com, NYTimes.com, and thousands of others -- could have
> cookies
> > exposed by Internet Explorer and intercepted
> > by a third-party Web site.
> >
> > 00-Aug Cnet:
> > [ http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2522411.html ] Bug hunter spies
> holes in
> > Windows, IE 5.x
> >
> > 00-Oct CNet:
> > [ http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2710872.html ] IE security bug
> leaves
> > files
> > vulnerable
> >
> > 00-Oct CNet:
> > [ http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2939733.html ] Bug hunter finds
> another
> > hole
> > in Microsoft IE browser
> >
> > Privacy sneakiness
> >
> > 99-Oct TechWeb:
> > [ http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19991015S0016 ] Who do you TRUSTe?
> > (Hotmail
> > carries viruses)
> >
> > Hotmail still leaks up to 56 of the Internet's most virulent
> > viruses, despite Microsoft's claim that it had patched
> > security at the trouble-prone e-mail service, according to
> > anti-virus experts.
> >
> > 00-Sep Cnet:
> > [ http://n
> >
> > Full text at: http://www.angelfire.com/nj2/edcurry/security.html
> >
> > Posted with: http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=596972256&fmt=text
> >
> > http: www angelfire com nj2 edcurry security html web2news.pl
------------------------------
From: "none" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can Linux "cut and paste" ?
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 14:11:36 -0800
try using netscape6-pr3 or even better the latest Mozilla snapshots,
Netscape relies a non-standard approach to do many things, including
clipboard. and Mozilla/Netscape6 has a standard approach too many things..
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest/mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu.t
ar.gz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I write a text article using kedit and I want to cut and paste it
> into a web page currently displayed by Netscape. I highlight the text,
> select copy or cut and then put my mouse over the box displayed by
> Netscape where I want to paste the text. Only problem is the Paste
> selection in the menu is greyed out.
>
> Thinking this is a Netscape problem, I use the kde browser and go to
> the same website and try it again.
>
> Same results.
>
> This works perfectly under Windows on the same site.
>
> What am I doing wrong here?
>
> FWIW I am running SuSE 6.4.
> claire
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 01:09:48 GMT
"Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39fb5d74$0$32700$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > [x86 fairly slow context switching]
>
> > (another reason why W2K can't make a
> > great server--poor hardware)
>
> >, whereas (again, IIRC) SPARCS are much
> > faster.
>
> Apparently, people testing database speed found otherwise. Currently, the
> fastest 64 CPU, $48M SPARC based computer holds the 9th rank while an
Intel
> based computer, for 1/4 of that price, goes more than three times faster.
> Incidentally, Intel based computers running Windows 2000 currently hold
the
> top four positions. Even if the benchmark is crap etc etc, CPU context
> switch doesn't seems to have such a dramatic effect on final server
> performances.
It does if you don't dedicate one or a cluster of machines to a single
job. On unix boxes it is common and reasonable to run hundreds
of different programs at the same time. I'm impressed by how
well current pentium systems handle it (I have one dual PIII 600
box that vmstat says is averaging around 2000 context switches
a second most of the day), but other CPU types are even better.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 01:10:08 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029) writes:
> Hey dude NeXT rules, dont bash on NeXT. The times were wrong, it was waaay to
> advanced. NeXT 3.3 is still my OS of choice, even over Linux.
Actually there were some other things wrong. Well not wrong in
some viewpoints, but from an economical stance...
Steve Jobs wanted to prevent "customization" which would make system
support hard. So the initial release of NeXT hardware was not
configurable, which annoyed some people. (amazingly, he used the
Nubus standard, but changed the form factor, making any off the shelf
cards unusable) One size fits all, and it wasn't an entry-level size.
Next, you could initially only use the NeXT printer. There were some
good ideas there - strip out postscript driver from printer and stick
it on the computer and you save on costs. But again annoying.
Used M.O. disks, which were really new. Good idea, but fundamentally
incompatible with other computers.
Lack of good interoperability. It was UNIX based, but didn't use a
lot of UNIX standards. Not even X Windows support.
In short, it suffered from the Jobs vision. It was a "concept
computer", and what he thought a computer should be if designed in a
vacuum. Which is GOOD, but it also happens to be bad in an economic
sense. The PC clone makers never had an ounce of originality, going
with new ideas only after someone else proved it was workable, but not
breaking the mold made for better marketting.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 21:33:28 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mig) wrote in <8tfcoj$i6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Now youre really being stupid. If its going to be professionel then its
> >Latex. Word is just not up for it.. it was not ready for it in 95 when i
> >tryed it last and its still not. Acutally i had to use Wordperfect 5.1
> >(Ahh.. they should have ported this one to Linux) to do a manual once .
>
> Am I? Is writing a script then running it through an engine not the old
> style way of doing documents? Has not the world moved on since then, to
> WYSIWYG and so on?
>
WYSIWYG is great for writing notes and memos. But documents, books, real
publishing? Forget it. Markup languages are the only practical way to do
that. For years now, I've used Bookmaster (a form of GML) to do all my
documentation and articles. It handles all of the tedious stuff for me,
like creating a table of contents and index, renumbering pages, chapters,
lists, tables, figures. And if I want to change from, for example, single
column to double column, or change the running title on the top or bottom
of the page, or perhaps change the level of detail in the table of
contents, I just format with a different option.
Gary
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 01:29:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 04:08:55 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
>
> >That's it. Linux 2.4 has been getting formal support from USB
> >peripheral vendors.
>
> >> and everybody else is shipping backports on 2.2 kernels.
> >
> >Corporations get very nervous about backports. Users probably won't
> >care.
>
> Well, _some_ corporations are doing it...like most Linux distributors.
> The fact that Compaq has some weird policy isn't really anybody else's
> problem but Compaq's.
The problem really isn't even Compaq's. It has to do with the
underwriters, mutual fund managers, and analysts who influence
the price of Compaq's stock, which in turn influences how much
they are able to borrow for new ventures (such as Linux).
> Isn't that the point of an open development process? That you, the
> user or distributor or whatever, can decide your own schedule?
One of the features of the Open Development process was that you had
"Tiers of Quality". You could use older battle-hardened code, newer
but "Blessed" code, developer 2.3 code, or even experimental alpha
and beta code.
> >> For that matter, just ship 2.4-pre-something and call it good.
> >
> >Corporations get REALLY nervous about betas shipped as production.
>
> This would explain why they're ok with things like Win95 I guess.
Ironically, the 2.4 kernel is far more stable than Windows 95, Windows
98, Windows NT, or even Windows 2000. It's even more stable than
Linux 2.2 in certain environments. Of course, the goal is to rival
the stability of commercial versions of UNIX, which often go years
with only very brief scheduled reboots (during which standby systems
handle the load).
> It has the right labels and corporations
> put more credence into labels than is justified.
Probably correct. Unfortunately, many of these standards were
established back in the days of Mainframes, when beta software
could be abandoned without ever going into production, and
back-ports were almost certian to NOT be available in future
releases.
> Whether the product is crap or not is not nearly as
> important.
Linux is very new to corporate interests. Many have never even
seen the KDE display. They have never even been made aware that
nearly 1/3 of all the sites they visit on the web are powered by
Linux. They only know that there is this new revision of a new
operating system that was supposed to be released about 6 months
ago. Ironically, by Open Source standards, everything is right
on schedule. Linux 2.4.1 was released a about a month late. We're
now on 2.4.9 with most of the glitches being removed over the previous
releases. The "Beta" designation is simply an acknowledgement that
there may still be significant problems with specific configurations.
> >Like it or not, Linux is in the "big league" complete with NYSE
> >corporate backing.
>
> Which has exactly squat to do with when the software is ready to ship.
Keep in mind that Jon "Maddog" Hall played a major role in getting
Compaq's executives to adopt Linux is the first place. Jon works for
Compaq and has been the "Corporate Ambassador" for Linux. His neck
is sticking out like a giraffe right now. Meanwhile, executives who
argued for excluding Linux and sticking exclusively with Microsoft
are pointing to these "Delays" as failures of Linux and Open Source.
> Is Compaq actually doing anything to help their own cause, or are they
> just upset because the world doesn't revolve around their silly
> policies?
Compaq took a big risk in crossing Microsoft and adopting Linux.
Compaq was created because they were willing to cut a deal with
Microsoft instead of licensing the technology through IBM. For
Linus to impose artificial delays at this point is a glaring
failure. This is inconsistent with all previous relases. Releases
1.0, 1.2, 1.4?, 2.0, and 2.2 simply came out. Everybody exected
that there would be bumps, but for the most part, the work was
mainly combining features from the "Development releases" (0.9, 1.1,
1.3, and 2.1) into a uniform supportable package.
Many were upset during the 2.2 release because Linus opted not to
include several features as "Standard" in the 2.2.1 release. Many
features, such as improved SMP Spinlocks and multithreaded NIC drivers
weren't added until 2.2.15.
> See, the thing is, corps have jumped into this thing that is
> fundamentally different from the way they are used to working.
Actually, when you start raising the possibility of liability,
insurance, loans, and decisions which impact stock price, there
are regulatory issues, and watchdogs involved. Shipping a system
with a "Beta" product can lower the S&P rating, lower market analyst's
ratings, and create a cash-flow crisis for the companies involved,
including their suppliers and customers.
> At least in the case we're talking about,
> they seem to think that the
> community that they have joined just
> recently should change to match
> their expectations based, I guess, on the fact that they are
> "important". This is called "being an asshole".
Actually, it's Linus who "Changed the rules". It's Linus who has
delivered 9 "beta revisions" for the first time in 5 years. The
artificial designation which tells the rest of the business community
that the product is "Unfit for general consumption", is inconsistent
with previous practices.
It make take a few months to evolve from 2.4.9 which provides great
new features and works well on most systems to 2.4.13 which provides
performance and reliability on all platforms that rival the best
commercially versions of UNIX.
> Why did these corps jump on Linux?
Very simply, Linux has been providing a very cost-effective solution
and as companies reach the point where revenue growth is slowing,
they need to get more "bang for the buck". Linux has been shown
to reduce labor costs (freeing resources to support further revenue
generating, customer retention, or cost saving projects).
Linux has emerged as a superior platform for customized application
services. While Microsoft has been pretty good at creating a good
platform for "Shrink-Wrap" software, many NT/2K applications are
taking longer to learn that it takes to create the equivalent Linux
solutions.
> Maybe they know that traditional
> development methods have all kinds of
> problems and the see Open Source
> as a way to fix that.
Absolutely!
> Yet they don't
> want to do anything different and
> expect Linus to jump to their tune.
Part of the problem is that they don't know
what to expect. Behavior has been inconsistent,
communication has been poor, and the established
rule of "Release early and often" has suddenly
been revoked. Suddenly billions of dollars are
being taken out of play by someone who has no
direct accountability for the economic impact.
> This seems rather, well, "insane"
> is a word that comes to mind.
Arguing for total chaos, for absolutely no established "ground rules"
creates just the sort of contriversy Microsoft can take to the press
and to corporate IT managers. If there are too many more delays,
Microsoft will be rubbing our noses in it for the next two years,
possibly long enough for yet another Windows release.
> Let's just keep doing the same thing
> and maybe it'll work better.
Actually, the people looking most closely at Linux are looking
to the "Release Early and Often" as the way to avoid shortages,
dead markets, and all the other whims of Bill Gates' Microsoft
Monopoly.
> >Meanwhile, IT managers who have been holding out for Linux servers
> >powered by 2.4 are sweating bullets right now.
>
> Why? Are they idiots? A clued person would
> evaluate what they need out of 2.4.
> Probably 95% of them would conclude that 2.2 meets their needs
> just fine (I don't see a lot of USB scanners on servers).
The problem is that there are three phases going into 2.4 at the
same time. There are enhanced desktop features (USB, Firewire,
DVD), enhanced server features (SMP, Clustering, faster IP), and
improved support for modules.
> Making decisions based on arbitrary labels
> stamped on products by the vendor
The problem is that it costs several million dollars to advertize,
promote, lease floor space, and establish product. The tag can
go to hundreds of millions when speaking of preconfigured hardware
systems. This significant investment can be rendered worthless
if a competitor releases a quantum improvement (2.4 kernel) even
a few weeks later.
> is insane when the development process
> is right out there in the open
> and you can make your own "freeze" any time you want.
This is true for hackers and experienced Linux users, but Compaq
was designing a product directed at the consumer line, novice Linux
users who may have known nothing other than Windows 98 and possibly
a little NT.
Part of the deal was that Compaq had to pay higher royalties to
Microsoct in exchange for the ability to offer Linux. And now,
when they have the chance to recover the revenue, Linus has put
the 2.4 release on "idefinite hold", possibly until the middle of
next year. This isn't the way to make friends with business.
It's a very good way to push OEMs, VARs, and corporate executives
right back into the Microsft camp. At least with Microsoft, if
Microsoft doesn't make it's numbers, it suffers as badly, even worse,
than everybody else.
> >> Yup, it sounds like the 'problem' lies mostly in the heads of some
> >> executives.
> >
> >In the business world, we call this "Managing Expectations". Linus
> >had prevously delivered major releases every year.
>
> Oh, get real. Compaq doesn't manage Linus.
> They need to get a grip on
> that if they are going to play.
According to your web page, you've owned a business, and you've
dealt with things like making a payroll, and feeding a family.
If your ability to feed your family were threatened because your
employer decided to delay your paychecks for roughly 3-6 months,
and also held the mortgage so that you couldn't quit, you'd
be naturally upset.
Open Source and Free Software isn't "Free Beer", it's free speech.
But when hundreds of corporate executives put their own careers
on the line for Open Source software, They aren't just concerned
about feeding their own families, but also the families of all of
the employees whose careers depend on IT.
The Cavelaier attitude that "Suits have no right to expect anything"
is like saying "employees have no right to expect to be paid".
Would you put your paycheck in a bank that said "maybe we'll let you
withdraw it in a few months"? Work for an employer who said
"We'll pay you 6 months from now"?
When Linus says "No 2.4 until March", that's a lot of families
and a lot of Linux supporters who are going to get very badly
burned. Looking pretty silly.
> Maybe it would be a good idea to start
> by not promising things they don't control.
They took a calculated risk based on promises made nearly a year
ago, and more recently.
> Then they can move on to
> deciding things based on reality rather than labels and hype.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
>
--
Rex Ballard - VP I/T Architecture
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oracle say's Microsoft no good!
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 01:32:28 GMT
Perhaps, But it does call into question the benchmarks that windows
advocats wave around as if they came out of the bible.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> not to rain on you party, I read the article and at no time did it
ever mention
> Linux, it did mention AIX and Windows 2000, but never Linux. Please
get your
> facts correct.
>
> matt
>
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> >
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2645534,00.html?chkpt=zdhpnews01
> >
> > Finally Oracle releases benchmarks proving Linux outperforms
> > anything Microsoft has.
> >
> > Microsoft's response is to pull license agreement
> > stipulating "NO BENCHMARKS MAY BE PUBLISHED
> > WITHOUT THEIR PRIOR APPROVAL".
> >
> > Now that sounds like an open and honest contest.
> >
> > --
> > Charlie
> >
> > By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
> > LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 21:48:08 -0400
Matt Kennel wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 21:06:23 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :You see, fool, such laws are actually to AID Big Business....so
> :burden their smaller competitors with employee-benefit costs which
> :the smaller businesses are not as able to handle.
>
> Obviously this means that the market is showing that the larger businesses
> are more economically successful.
Regardless, it is still government sticking their nose into contract
negotiations between business and employees.
>
> --
> * Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
> *
> * "To chill, or to pop a cap in my dome, whoomp! there it is."
> * Hamlet, Fresh Prince of Denmark.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "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"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
