Linux-Advocacy Digest #916, Volume #29 Sun, 29 Oct 00 13:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Tuff Competition for LINUX! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (John Brogan)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (sinister-catsup)
Re: Astroturfing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Astroturfing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Printer Driver for Corel Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:07:11 GMT
On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 00:53:53 -0400, joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "MS admitted"
:
: MS is NOT required to tell the public what was seen nor to be truthful
: about the
: extend of the break-in.
Actually, they are required to disclose things like that, since they are
a publicly held company. Anything that has the possibility of affecting
revenues must be reported to shareholders in their quarterlies (10Q) and
annuals (10K).
That's not to say they actually will, because the fact that they are
publicly held has never before kept them from issuing statements full of
half-truths and/or outright false statements.
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[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: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 09:11:38 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >
> > No one could stop an OEM from selling a retail copy of Windows Me. But
it
> > would be a lot more expensive.
>
> Look, when the OS license cost more than the profit margin of a PC,
> then DOUBLING the OS licence cost effectively forces the OEM to raise
> prices.
Yes. Discounts do allow companies to sell their products for less.
Sometimes.
Sometimes they just pocket the difference as profit.
>
> FACE THE FUCKING FACTS: MS IS COMPLETELY FUCKING UNWILLING TO HAVE
> STRAIGHT, SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPETITION IN THE MARKET PLACE.
Anyone who wants to can pay retail. No one has to take those deep, deep
discounts.
>
>
>
> >
> > OEM's wanted to sell their computers as cheap as they could and Microsft
> > made them a deal that was hard to refuse ... but they could have at any
time
>
>
> Wrong, wrong, wrong, asshole.
>
> When *EVERYBODY* gets the fucking discount...then that *IS* the normal
> price...so that any OEM that doesn't get the "discount" (i.e. NORMAL)
price,
> is actually being PENALIZED for merely giving their customers a wider
> selection of products.
Not everyone gets the discount.
> This is called OBSTRUCTION OF TRADE.
No. It's called very tough business practices.
>
> IT IS ILLEGAL.
I don't think so.
>
> OBSTRUCTION OF TRADE has been illegal in this country since the days of
> the mining industry's "company town" rackets were broken up.
Dell and Compaq were always free to choose to pay retail for Windows and
nopt take the deep, deep discounts Microsft was offering.
Always.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tuff Competition for LINUX!
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:10:07 GMT
Andy Newman wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert wrote:
> ..all sorts of rampant speculation...
>
> Wow Charlie. Take that medication quick smart! You're starting
> to make the Chads look good.
>
> What MS say is that they have no evidence that anything was
> stolen (see press release). But they only found out a Qaz
> trojan was running on a machine inside their network the other
> day. And reports of its age range from 1 to 3 months. Who
> really knows what went on in that time. They don't log
> everything and may not always be able to tell the difference
> between an intruder's actions and those of the legitimite
> user in any case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_993000/993933.stm
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-3310071.html?tag=st.ne.ron.lthd.ni
Why I don't think so POO BEAR!
Microsoft has come forth to CNET and admitted everything was stolen!
READ THIS!
--
Charlie
By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
------------------------------
From: John Brogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:12:01 +0000
gm wrote:
> >EVERYBODY AT MICROSOFT IN REDMOND IS
> >DUMMER THAN A BAG OF HAMMERS AS THEY
> >LET CHINEESE COMMUNISTS HACK INTO THEIR
> >SYSTEM AND STEAL ALL THEIR SHIT FOR 3 MONTHS!
>
> You completely missed his point. The issue wasn't whether someone
> could pass network traffic past Microsoft -- it was whether MS could
> sneak in backdoors to their products while there are so many MS haters
> out there looking for that type of activity. He then when on to say
> all you'd need to do is run a port traffic program to catch such
> activity.
>
MS apparently thought they could do just that. They were caught at it a long time ago.
--
NOTICE TO BULK EMAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47,
Chapter 5, Subchapter II, 227, any and all nonsolicited
commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a
download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US.
E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly
prohibited under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are
subject to charge of up to $1,500 per incident or treble actual
costs, whichever is greater.
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it
is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By
Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by law.
For a complete summary of this Legislation see:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SN01618:@@@D
Chairman Reed Hundt: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Commissioner James Quello: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Commissioner Susan Ness: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
jwb
------------------------------
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: sinister-catsup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 12:11:48 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In <8tgov8$en5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/29/00=20
> at 03:00 AM, "Harvey Louzon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>=20
> >You're an idiot.
>=20
>=20
> He's not a complete idiot. If the source for Windows is out there and o=
thers
> now have the tools for uncontrolled and/or unknown espionage -- then Wi=
ncrap
> whatever should be removed from all US Government computers that have
> sensitive information on them.
>=20
> I'd leave the information of the Ge's and others to themselves. If they=
are
> too dumb to protect it, they deserve to lose it.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >h
>=20
> >Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> There has been much talk about hidden ports in
> >> the back end of all windows products in the last
> >> year.
> >>
> >> This is probably what triggered the break-in
> >> at Microsoft and the theft of their source code.
> >>
> >> Foreign powers, including China, have been
> >> using Microsoft products for a very long time
> >> and are moving away to Linux as we speak.
> >>
> >> I'll bet they would like to know what back ends
> >> Microsoft put into Windows for the NSA.
> >>
> >> And now that countries like China are OFF
> >> Windows they probably stole the code so
> >> they could perform a spy mission in REVERSE!
> >>
> >> This is another reason to use Linux with it's
> >> Open Source code. Loopholes are found and
> >> closed. Government agencies can't force
> >> them to IMPLANT anything they don't want
> >> in there.
> >>
> >> So now, people in China and Russia have
> >> Microsoft source code. And it will be
> >> source code from either W2k or Whistler
> >> or BOTH.
> >>
> >> They now have the ability to find these
> >> back ports in the code and prove the U.S.
> >> had the ability to spy on anybody who
> >> had it. This would be politically embarrassing
> >> for the U.S. if proven.
> >>
> >> They have the ability to find ALL the security
> >> holes now and exploit them. A whole series
> >> of NEW computer viruses designed to attack
> >> anybody with a Microsoft system will be
> >> unleashed upon the world.
> >>
> >> And Finally, if there are ANY back ports
> >> to Windows systems their existence will
> >> be exposed to the public.
> >>
> >> In America, the U.S. Government uses
> >> Windows extensively in conjunction with
> >> Visual Basic. This makes every Federal Court
> >> house, every branch of the military, every state,
> >> every town susceptible to attack now.
> >>
> >> It also makes Windows using corporate America
> >> susceptible to the same attacks. Many corporate
> >> secrets will be stolen.
> >>
> >> The FBI said it best when Microsoft came to them.
> >> You can't expect us to protect you when you guys
> >> are the ones who are supposed to be making the
> >> security.
> >>
> >> Even if the FBI had an idea who took all this code
> >> they couldn't do a thing about it. Their refusal
> >> to go further on this case almost indicates they
> >> know it was unfriendly foreign powers which
> >> perpetrated the crime.
> >>
> >> If it were any kind of crackers such as with
> >> the I-LOVE-YOU virus we would see some
> >> 18 year old foreign college student being
> >> thrown in jail as we did earlier.
> >>
> >> The closed source model is a double edged sword.
> >> While it makes it extremely USEFUL for spy
> >> organizations to hack into european governments
> >> or unfriendly countries, it can also be turned
> >> against the U.S. in a heartbeat.
> >>
> >> So starting next year, here is my prediction.
> >> The United States and for that matter every
> >> government will be rapidly throwing out
> >> Windows in favor of Linux or another operating
> >> system. It's a security threat to the world now
> >> and everybody knows this. Just the Microsoft
> >> break-in was enough to prove this point, we
> >> don't need to speculate further. There will
> >> be enough speculation going on behind closed
> >> doors at the NSA this weekend.
> >>
> >> Every Corporation of size will be leaving Microsoft
> >> in favor of Red Hat's alternatives via IBM, DELL,
> >> COMPAQ, you name it. 2001 will be a time
> >> of mass government and corporate exodus from
> >> the Microsoft arena.
> >>
> >> All Military bases should be in the works to
> >> scrap every bit of Microsoft code they have
> >> so they can preserve our security.
> >>
> >> Microsoft will still have a hold on the home market
> >> for a few more years.
> >>
> >> It could possibly even change the current strategy
> >> Microsoft is using in the current Anti Trust trial
> >> and force a quick closure on the matter.
> >>
> >> Anyone of these actions OR all of these
> >> actions will take place next year.
> >>
> >> I REFUSE to believe the world is stupid
> >> enough to have observed this event and
> >> just stand there for the next Pearl Harbor
> >> attack.
> >>
> >> To consider HOW Microsoft was attacked
> >> indicates a very well coordinated/organized
> >> foreign attack.
> >>
> >> And it proves that even without source code
> >> anyone running a Microsoft OS is currently
> >> at jeapordy. Think what it will be like
> >> in just 4 months time when the code has been
> >> analyzed.
> >>
> >> Any company or organization who refuses
> >> to come to this reality will absolutely
> >> get it's ass kicked all over the block.
> >>
> >> GNU/LINUX - OPEN SOURCE
> >> and SAFE!
> >>
> >>
> >> BE SAFE!
> >>
> >> --
> >> Charlie
> >>
> >> By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
> >> LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
> >>
> >>
> >>
to replace it with what mac? Thats funny.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 12:18:38 -0500
In <8thkg4$cle$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/29/00
at 04:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>Go to deja.com/usenet and prove that the discussion was about overall system
>performance and that you didn't start a tangental discussion which had no
>bearing on the topic at hand.
I have no idea what you are trying to say with this, but just a day ago you
took the opposite position:
>>>We weren't talking about the overall system, this is something you've tried
>>>to add to save face and it isn't working you dishonest asshole.
What is your next position going to be?
You're nothing but an asshole who needs some professional help. -- Your
entire problem is nothing more then a grudge match, and even within that you
keep flip-floping your position back and forth trying to prove that you are
right. Now go outside and play in your sandbox.
PS: Read the Code of Ethics for the IEEE. You will find, based on your
behavior here, that you don't qualify to be a PE.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:27:16 GMT
Bruce Schuck wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:vXMK5.116670$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > There has been much talk about hidden ports in
> > > > > the back end of all windows products in the last
> > > > > year.
> > > >
> > > > Anyone who runs Zonealarm -- which reports unauthorized TCP/IP traffic
> IN
> > > > and OUT knows you are full of sh*t.
> > >
> > > Hell, a simple portscan would reveal the same. You're correct about
> > > charlie "Village Idiot" Ebert, that's why he's earned #3 on my
> > > killfile list. (MiG and Matt are 1 and 2 respectively)
> > >
> > > > We Zonalarm users know who has the hidden ports -- Real Audio , Adware
> etc
> > > > etc.
> > >
> > > Does Real even try to hide it? I thought they just sent out all your
> > > personal information without even trying to mask it. When called on it,
> > > they "disabled" that "feature", but the next version it was back again.
> > >
> > > > What a bunch of morons you Linux advocates are.
> > >
> > > You're just now realizing this? It's been proven many a time...
> > >
> > > You should check out the Mac and OS/2 advocates as well...
> > >
> > > > If you think Microsft could sneak hidden TCP/IP traffic past all the
> > > > Microsoft haters masquerading as security experts you are dummer than
> a bag
> > > > of hammers.
> > >
> > > He doesn't need to think that just to prove he's dummer than that.
> > >
> > > -Chad
> >
> > I think this is very interesting.
> >
> > What these two guys are implying is that Microsoft at Redmond
> > didn't have "Zonalarm" installed and had NO security.
>
> Zonealarm. With an "e".
>
> I was responding to Chad's lunatic assertion about hidden ports.
>
> And he is still a twit.
>
> I agree they should have had firewalls checking for outgoing connections if
> this Microsoft employee was infected INSIDE Microsoft. At least one news
> report suggests this was a Microsoft employee working from home and his home
> computer was compromised.
I appologize then and still say that Microsoft HAD security.
They have a team of people working security there.
And this incident only goes to prove that the masters
of Windows, their creators, can't even manage to secure
their OWN company.
Therefore, corporate America needs to take note of this fact
and get rid of Windows as fast as they can.
You can NOT secure anything with Windows in the mix.
Windows is a SECURITY RISK.
And that's BEFORE the source code had been stolen.
It will be MUCH worse now that it's out.
--
Charlie
By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 12:32:14 -0500
In <8thknd$cp6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/29/00
at 04:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>In article <39fb2ab9$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In <8tf6vs$2ps$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/28/00
>> at 06:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>>
>>>In article <39fb0657$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>In <8teuj4$rlg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/28/00
>>>> at 04:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>>>>
>>>>>Since you feel that you were right Ed, describe the cpu cache on any x86
>>>>>processor and specifically the caching of the 430VX chipset. The topic at
>>>>>hand was the 430VX and it's inability to cache more than 64Mb of ram. This
>>>>>means that everytime an address above 64Mb was used the cpu had to fetch it
>>>>>from memory as opposed to first hitting the cache, this is a huge performance
>>>>>hit. This was the topic and no software will make hardware run faster. Bob
>>>>>was stupid enough to think the setting for OS/2 to use more than 64Mb on some
>>>>>motherboards was the topic. You decided to add irrelevant information about
>>>>>os memory management. The discussion was on a purely hardware level. You
>>>>>and Bob were wrong but being such little people you can't admit that. You
>>>>>are free to cuss and name call all you want. The opinion of somebody that
>>>>>was obviously wrong and can't admit that is an opinion that isn't valid in my
>>>>>eyes.
>>>>
>>>>Listen you idiot -- Can you read? I never said software will make hardware run
>>>>faster. What I said, and which you are obviously are incapable of
>>>>understanding -- is that this hardware limitation does not matter in terms of
>>>>real-world productivity.
>>>>
>>>>You ***really need to talk with a shrink*** to find out why being right --
>>>>when in fact you are not right in the context of the larger argument, and you
>>>>have to continue for years with a grudge over it. Now go find a good shrink
>>>>and shut up.
>>
>>>And the original topic was never about that. Who needs the shrink? The
>>>person unable to admit that they added extraneous information to divert
>>>attention from the mistake of a fellow OS/2 advocate? So tell me, why bring
>>>in off topic material to the conversation?
>>
>>You need the shrink. Your point just doesn't matter except inside your pea
>>brain. You're entire compliant is that you were winning the argument with
>>someone, until another party came along and said that your point -- while
>>technically correct -- just doesn't matter in the real world. You want to
>>argue for the sake of it, instead of sharing knowledge and learning. You are
>>trolling. Its really time for you grow up and that starts with shuting up.
>Ummm why don't you go to deja.com/usenet and prove this Ed. The whole
>discussion was about the hardware caching and nothing more, any other
>tangents were irrelevant. We weren't talking about a whole system and only
>dishonest assholes that lost on that point tried to take it somewhere else.
>Now weren't you going to put me in you're "twit filter" or are you lying
>again?
I decided to hang around and see how mad you get. Looking at your last message
you are so angry that you can't see straight -- or more exactly get your story
straight. It all goes back to the same thing; you are in a grudge match. You
were winning a point, and someone else (me) came along and took away your
sandbox victory. You can't go home to mommy and cry, so you keep popping up
here to inject me into this or that, every time the chance comes up.
You have been doing this for several monts now and I have your messages to
prove it. So we know exactly what you are; an angry little boy who lost an
internet game and keeps crying about it for months and months, and who will
continue until you grow up -- which in your case may well never happen.
So, see ya junior. When you growup and want to have an adult conversation let
me know.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:34:38 GMT
gm wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 04:42:22 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> >http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-3310071.html?tag=st.ne.ron.lthd.ni
> >
> >3 FULL MONTHS they were stealing code and Microsoft
> >has now admitted they got everything including Whistler!
>
> Do you even bother to read the very sources that you refer to?
> What MS admitted was they saw code for programs that are in
> development, but they did not see the code for existing products.
IT says what it said before! They haven't changed it.
update Microsoft acknowledged Friday that hackers had accessed source code to
programs in development, but
company representatives said the intruders did not see code for existing
products.
So Office, IE, Outlook Express, Whistler, these are things which are not being
developed!
Here's another direct quote.
Pescatore compared someone getting the source code of Windows 2000 to stealing
the formula to Pepsi.
Why did they make this analogy?
>
>
> If you believe what MS says on the matter, it should be clear that
> they had logging turned on, which implies firewall software.
>
> >Further, nobody at Microsoft corporate system administration
> >does security audits to detect these kinds of events.
>
> That's a failure of the admin personnel, not a failure of the
> software. It could easily have happened at any other company running
> something other than Windows if the security administrator(s) aren't
> keeping their eyes open.
>
SURE! OH SURE!
Yeah, I believe that.
>
> >> If you think Microsoft could sneak hidden TCP/IP traffic past all the
> >> Microsoft haters masquerading as security experts you are dummer than a bag
> >> of hammers.
>
> >EVERYBODY AT MICROSOFT IN REDMOND IS
> >DUMMER THAN A BAG OF HAMMERS AS THEY
> >LET CHINEESE COMMUNISTS HACK INTO THEIR
> >SYSTEM AND STEAL ALL THEIR SHIT FOR 3 MONTHS!
>
> You completely missed his point. The issue wasn't whether someone
> could pass network traffic past Microsoft -- it was whether MS could
> sneak in backdoors to their products while there are so many MS haters
> out there looking for that type of activity. He then when on to say
> all you'd need to do is run a port traffic program to catch such
> activity.
>
> This harkens back to my very first question... do you even bother to
> read what you're responding to?
I think anybody can INTERPRET the TRUTH away if they want to.
What your trying to tell us is that NO SOURCE CODE WAS STOLEN
I think..... OR THAT ONLY FUTURE SOFTWARE SOURCE CODE
WAS STOLEN....
I think that if there are backdoors to MS code, we will be learning
about it abruptly, starting early next year.
MY PLEA to anybody with a brain is LEAVE MS NOW.
DON'T BE AN IDIOT WITH THIS THING.
--
Charlie
By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:41:05 GMT
gm wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 00:53:53 -0400, joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >gm wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 04:42:22 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >> >http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-3310071.html?tag=st.ne.ron.lthd.ni
> >> >
> >> >3 FULL MONTHS they were stealing code and Microsoft
> >> >has now admitted they got everything including Whistler!
> >>
> >> Do you even bother to read the very sources that you refer to?
> >> What MS admitted was they saw code for programs that are in
> >> development, but they did not see the code for existing products.
> >
> >"MS admitted"
> >
> >MS is NOT required to tell the public what was seen nor to be truthful about the
> >extend of the break-in.
>
> That's unrelated to the point I made, which was to point out the
> fallacy of Charlie Ebert's claim -- i.e., that MS admitted they got
> everything. MS did not make that admission.
>
> To get back to your point, if MS is lying about the extent of the
> break in, all that needs to be done to prove it is for the hacker to
> provide source code for existing products.
>
Well, I'm glad to see you don't think I'm full of shit then.
This begs to ask why you started this crap in the first place then.
>
> >> That's a failure of the admin personnel, not a failure of the
> >> software. It could easily have happened at any other company running
> >> something other than Windows if the security administrator(s) aren't
> >> keeping their eyes open.
> >
> >Baloney. Windows is designed with "features: that rely heavily on individuals.
> >It is a design flaw.
>
> Baloney right back at you. The question isn't about Windows, but about
> corporate security that wasn't adequately implemented and the firewall
> logs that were NOT adequately monitored.
>
> For all you or I know, their firewall could have consisted of a *nix
> firewall, just as their Hotmail system runs primarily on *nix.
Yes meathead. It's well known that all UNIX based system
are prone to E-mail viruse attachments in WORD DOCUMENTS.
What a fucking jerk.
--
Charlie
By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:43:24 GMT
Nik Simpson wrote:
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:vXMK5.116670$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > There has been much talk about hidden ports in
> > > the back end of all windows products in the last
> > > year.
> >
>
> >
> > What a bunch of morons you Linux advocates are.
> >
> Its not fair or even helpful to tar all LINUX advocates with the same brush
> used on Charlie who is clearly delusional.
>
> --
> Nik Simpson
If Microsoft had OPEN SOURCE and it was confirmed there
WERE NO backend ports then I would agree with your comments.
But since they don't and one case has been confirmed then we
will wait to see from the stolen source code that the truth is
in the form of dozens of highly specialized viruses which attack
and tear down Microsoft products.
Then we will all know about them.
--
Charlie
By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:46:25 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In <8tgov8$en5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/29/00
> at 03:00 AM, "Harvey Louzon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >You're an idiot.
>
> He's not a complete idiot. If the source for Windows is out there and others
> now have the tools for uncontrolled and/or unknown espionage -- then Wincrap
> whatever should be removed from all US Government computers that have
> sensitive information on them.
TOTALLY AGREED.
This incident has absolutely proven that Microsoft OS's are TOTALLY
INSECURE.
I would HATE to be a systems administrator of a Microsoft OS shop
in just about 3 months time after this code has had time to be analyzed.
>
>
> I'd leave the information of the Ge's and others to themselves. If they are
> too dumb to protect it, they deserve to lose it.
>
Some people will have to learn OFF NEWSGROUPS.
>
> >h
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----------------------------------------------------------
--
Charlie
By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Printer Driver for Corel Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:48:08 GMT
It's supported under GhostScript 5 according to the SuSE Linux support
DB.
Check this link (you might have to wrap it):
http://cdb.suse.de/cgi-bin/scdb?ID=9728414829&HTML=ENGLISH%2Fcdb_listtemplates%2Fshow_a.htm&INDEX=6898
claire
On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:44:36 +0100, "Et MAIRESSE"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi,
>I have a Epson Stylus Color 600 printer. Epson don't have any driver for
>Linux.
>Can anyone help me to find a driver ?
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
