Linux-Advocacy Digest #917, Volume #29 Sun, 29 Oct 00 14:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Printer Driver for Corel Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I wouldn't want to be the poor Bastard..... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Spread the source code of Windows (Mikey)
Re: Linux (2:1)
Chad, linux can see memory. (2:1)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (2:1)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (2:1)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Private User)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (Bob Hauck)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (Bob Hauck)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Bruce Schuck")
Any better distributions? ("Krastan B. Blagoev")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Printer Driver for Corel Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:49:38 GMT
I know you are running Corel, but Ghostscript should work fine under
it as well.
http://www.ghostscript.com
should get you there.
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 ?
>
>
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I wouldn't want to be the poor Bastard.....
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:53:45 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> who executed the attachment that contained the QAZ trojan. He's
> probably cleaning every bathroom in MS University with his toothbrush
> right now.
This is another aspect of MS security. They don't know who did it.
>
>
> BTW one of the traits of that Trojan is that it travels across the
> network looking for machines to infect.
Yes.
>
> The major AntiViral scanner software wasn't updated to catch it until
> July sometime and the Trojan was born sometime in June. Firewall
> software like ZoneAlarm and Norton etc will catch it only because they
> catch programs trying to dial out, or make outbound connections to the
> Network/internet.
>
Most of the HOLES concerning Microsoft I think are in COMMONLY
USED ports. So nothing would get audited.
Like the ability to backend port 80 and enter the network.
I suspect weird shit like this.
>
> When you are asked "Would you like notepad.exe to be allowed to
> connect to the internet?" a red flag should go up :)
They have known about this for 12 years now. Back during
Windows 3.X these questions were brought forth.
We have suffered WAVES of attachments since then and
MS had never admitted it was a problem and thus never
fixed the problem.
I'm just glad this time it BURNED THEIR ASSES FIRST.
>
> That's how my client found it and it had spread to all 4 or 5 of his
> networked machines. I could only imagine how many machines in
> Microsoft are infected. Oh well, they know all about Notepad.exe.
>
> claire
>
> claire
And Microsoft has the BEST SECURITY of any Microsoft shop.
They have been toughted as the FORT KNOX for Microsoft software.
That NO ATTACK would ever be sucessful there.
And they have the buck to do what ever they want.
--
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 17:58:55 GMT
A transfinite number of monkeys wrote:
> 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.
BANK ON IT! They WON'T.
They still won't admit they CANN drives!
They still won't admit they have a problem with viruses in ATTACHMENTS,
EVEN AFTER THIS ATTACK THEY WON'T ADMIT IT!
Truely, anyone who uses Microsoft for an OS is a pathetic meathead.
I mean how many times are these people going to take it up the
ass and enjoy it? How many?
And the problem here is when your at work then end up dragging YOUR
ass down with them. And they seem to enjoy this shit.
It's still my opinion that the board of directors of EVERY company
in the world needs to set a mandate to their presidents today,
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY WE ARE SEEKING ALTERNATIVES
TO THE MICROSOFT WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM, ANY
DEVIATIONS FROM THIS POLICY ARE GROUNDS FOR IMMEDIATE
TERMINATION OF YOUR COMMAND.
This is what needs to be said.
--
Charlie
By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
------------------------------
From: Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Spread the source code of Windows
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 03:09:51 -0500
Thus Sprake Robben Mario:
>
> PLEAAAAAAAAAAAASSSEEEEEEEE
>
> I want to see if it's true about the crack. Even some portions of the source
> coude would satisfy me.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/8009/win95.source.code.htm
:)
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam
possit materiari?
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:01:08 +0000
> Yep. But the higher truth is that all engineering sucks somehow.
You don't know any decent engineers, then.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Chad, linux can see memory.
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:04:45 +0000
Chad,
you keep spouting on about linux's inability to detect memory above 64M
on most systems.
You have yet to show a shred of evidence that it is 'most' systems.
Either show evidence or admit you're wrong.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[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 20:27:50 +0000
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Y5NK5.116673$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8tfuh6$io0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > 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).
> >
> > Tell that EBay. I guess they didn't have a spare Sun E10000 to "handle the
> > load" sitting around so their live "upgrade" has caused some significant
> > downtime over the past few weeks.
> >
> > Clustering of smaller boxes allows the upgrade of one machine at a time. And
> > its cheaper.
>
> and faster, and easier to maintain and...
unless you put windows on.
>
> -Chad
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[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 20:29:59 +0000
> Forward compatibiliy is a problem. You can't run large databases,
> seeks on large files, or large streaming files until you've upgraded
> to the 2.4 kernel. This especially limits databases, and video
> editing. Uncompressed HTDV video consumes about 8 megabytes/second.
> A 2 hour movie can require around 60 gigabytes. NTSC requires 1/2
> that.
IIRC 2.2 on 64 bit (proper) computers can handle large files
-Ed
>
> Most of the changes have impacts on drivers, SMP performance, and
> stability.
>
> Unfortunately, the really good systems cannot be released until
> Linux 2.4 kernel is officially released. It doesn't have to be
> perfect, but it has to be reliable enough that fallback back to
> 2.2 is not necessary.
>
> > Do all programs that need large file support have to
> > be recompiled to get it?
>
> If you need large files, you need 2.4 libraries and kernel.
>
> > How much will break when you start
> > using large files with programs that
> > were compiled without support for them?
>
> Actually, you won't be able to seek on large files unless you
> are using the long file seek calls. Streams could be handled
> using external pipelines.
>
> > Les Mikesell
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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.
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Private User <See.Comment.Header@[127.1]>
Date: 29 Oct 2000 18:44:36 -0000
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,soc.singles
aaron wrote:
> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Bully as in giving them an excellent price on the OS vs. making them pay
> > retail.
>
> You don't understand.
>
> A legal "volume discount" is evaluate by the number of YOUR product sold,
> *NOT* based on the number of competitors' products sold.
>
> The first is legal.
> The second is illegal.
behold libertarianism
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
STOP THE TROLLOCAUST
NEVER AGAIN!
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin, more
even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:43:43 GMT
On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 01:29:14 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
>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).
Pffft! Compaq is borrowing to fund Linux development? I don't think
so. Maybe to fund their marketing of Linux, which is not the same
thing at all.
>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.
As if W2K wasn't delayed? As if practically every single MS release in
recent memory, with the exeception of NT 3.x, wasn't delayed for
_years_ beyond when they were expected? Do corporate executives really
have memories that short?
>> 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.
That wasn't what I was asking, Rex. Is Compaq *doing any work*? Them
taking a marketing risk doesn't count as "helping their own cause". If
they want it done sooner, they know where to find the code. Haul out
some programmers and fix the bugs and Linus will release it.
>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.
There have been problems with the VM system. I don't think that is
"arbitrary". There have been debates on whether to include a JFS or
not. That's not "arbitrary" either. As a user, I appreciate the idea
of shipping it when it is done. If corporate involvement means that
Linus has to ship something that isn't done, well, then I guess I'll
need to start looking at FreeBSD a little harder.
The whole goddamn point of the Open Source development process is that
it is *user* and *developer* driven, not corporate marketing weenie
driven. That crap is what brought us Microsoft and the "good enough"
attitude of many software developers. If Linux turns into another one
of those exercises in stupidity, it is doomed because the core group of
people who got it where it is today will walk. Them's the facts Rex,
and if Compaq and "mutual fund managers" don't get it then good
riddance to them because they will not win the war with Microsoft by
doing exactly what lost them the war last time.
>Actually, it's Linus who "Changed the rules". It's Linus who has
>delivered 9 "beta revisions" for the first time in 5 years.
Bullshit. There was a long drawn-out process leading up to 2.2 as
well. They got up to 2.1.100-something IIRC. It is done when Linus
thinks it is done. If _you_ or Compaq or anyone else think it is done
sooner, they are always free to ship it. Nobody is stopping them. If
it is stable enough, then it is stable enough. If not, not. If Linus
were to stamp "2.4.1" on the current pre-release, that doesn't change a
damn thing except the label.
You say Compaq doesn't want to assume risk. That's _their_ problem,
not Linus'. They can't sue him if there's a problem with 2.4.1 any
more than they can sue him if there's a problem with 2.4.1-pre9.
The "risk" is infinitesimal in any case, since they ship all of their
products with an EULA that says "you can't sue us" anyway.
>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).
You forgot "better poduct".
But there's a tradeoff for those advantages. That being that the
companies don't get to control things any more. TANSTAAFL.
>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.
Huh? You can download the current development kernels. The rule has
not changed.
>Suddenly billions of dollars are
>being taken out of play by someone who has no
>direct accountability for the economic impact.
No, Rex, billions of dollars are being taken out of play by corporate
executives in thrall to arbitrary labels. Executives who have signed
on for a new development methodology without the slightest
understanding of how it works. Maybe you need to explain this to
them rather than making excuses for them.
>> 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.
Is that what I am arguing for? No. I am arguing for taking
responsibility for what you ship. If the current 2.4pre-whatever is
really good enough, then ship it. You don't have to ask anyone's
permission. If it isn't good enough, then shut the hell up and help
make it good enough. That is how the process works.
>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.
Again, Microsoft has far more to answer for regarding delays than Linus
does.
>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.
These people DON'T NEED 2.4! These people need KDE2 or Helix plus
something like Webmin. These things have nothing to do with the 2.4
kernel, except for USB, which has been backported. Your argument about
"a backport might go away in the next release" doesn't make any sense
since the next release is right there on the FTP site with the USB
stuff in it.
>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
You keep talking as if Compaq has to wait for Linus. They don't.
However, _he_ doesn't think the current 2.4 is good enough and frankly
I respect his judgement on this matter a lot more than I do that of
some Compaq marketing flack. Life will go on.
>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.
Since when? NT5 was how many years late? I don't see MS suffering
from this. I don't see them being held accountable in any way at all
for lateness or bugs or anything else.
>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.
This is a very bad analogy. When I ran my business, if I needed
something from a development kernel I could decide whether to assume
the risk and use it now, or wait until Linus blessed it. But _I_ had
to make that decision, not Linus. Not being insulated by layers of
bureaucracy and bullshit artists, I could not whine to my employees and
customers and push the blame onto Linus. The servers worked or they
didn't and it wasn't Linus' fault either way.
>The Cavelaier attitude that "Suits have no right to expect anything"
>is like saying "employees have no right to expect to be paid".
If the suits want to control Linux, they are free to fork it at any
time. They can have exactly what they want. But that would cost money
and entail risk. Can't have that. It is much easier to stick with the
main kernel and whine about Linus, just like they whine about Microsoft
(not too much...don't wanna get sued). Well, at least with Linus they
have options, even if they refuse to take them.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[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 10:46:10 -0800
"joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> 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.
The SEC would require disclosure if it was material to the companies
fortunes.
Shareholders could clearly sue if Microsoft lied about it.
If you bring in the FBI you might be guilty of bad judgement, but you aren't
guilty of a coverup.
>
> > 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.
People break into root on Linux boxes everyday. Go read the security
advisories.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:43:46 GMT
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 02:05:11 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The #1 problem with commercially written software
>was marketing constant efforts to bear the unripe fruit.
YES! Somebody gets it! I've been trying to pound this into Rex's head
for several posts now. If someone wants to ship 2.4-pre9, they are
free to do so. But Compaq doesn't want to do that, they want Linus to
assume their risk and stamp "done" on it per their schedule so they can
blame him for any problems.
I think Linus should call it done when he thinks it is done, and not
one second before. If he's going to take the blame, he gets to call
the tune.
>There is nothing wrong with the 2.2 Kernel.
>If need be they can just SELL that this
>Christmas.
100% true.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:43:49 GMT
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:27:51 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2:1) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>What does MS Exel do? Corel paradox powerpoint, access, hotmetal pro,
>>quark express, mscdex.exe?
>And yet I know and so do you, what they all mean. Funny that.
Yes it is funny what multi-millions of marketing dollars can do for
your name recognition.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[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 10:52:34 -0800
"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 20:38:35 -0700, "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > "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.
> >
> > We Zonalarm users know who has the hidden ports -- Real Audio , Adware
etc
> > etc.
> >
> > It ain't the Microsoft OS.
>
> With Microsoft's source in the hands of some very clever "hackers" all
bets
> are now off.
So you suggest that no open source software is secure?
I tend to agree with you. It's one of my beefs with Linux.
Luckily Microsoft can now change their source code and keep those changes
hidden.
Linux users will always feel very afraid about the backdoors people could
intorduce in their source.
>
> > What a bunch of morons you Linux advocates are.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Someone's been sneaking hidden TCP/IP traffic past Microsoft for the past
> three months at least.
Actually, the QAZ trojan infected a Microsft employees home computer which
was then used to browse some of the Microsoft LAN via an authorized VPN
connection.
Microsft caught the intruder when some accounts were created.
I think the message is "NO HOME OFFICES GET ACCESS TO THE CORPORATE LAN."
That will make many people unhappy. But it is a valid comment.
------------------------------
From: "Krastan B. Blagoev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Any better distributions?
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 19:05:35 GMT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============FD7FDDB1C6DC31CA910F9E81
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I have been using Open Linux from 1.1 to 2.4.
This is the last one I will use. I don't understand
why Caldera (now public company) wouldn't put
updates regularly on their site (they used to do it 4 years ago).
I wanted to upgrade communicator from 4.72 to 4.75.
Well, first I upgraded acrobat reader from 4.00 to 4.05
because the 4.00 has a bug and doesn't display '-' signs
in math. formulas. Then I upgraded real player to 7.
Real player 5 didn't get neither upgraded nor removed as
promised by the rpm packager.
So far I got all the rpms from Red Hat!!!
Then from the same site I got the netscape rpm.
What a surprise when the rpm -U ...
gave me the message that this rpm supports only
software versions <=x.x3. Well how do I upgrade to x.x5 or x.x6!?
I think that it is ridiculous to go after Microsoft when there
is no reliable desktop OS on the market. (I've used FreeBSD and
Solaris so, please don't give them as an alternative)
I also went through the trouble of installing from sources
but then the mess was even bigger.
I think that if Caldera cared for its customers, after the bug in
netscape < 4.75 was found would have put an upgrade for
netscape instead of publicizing this "tech. preview" in which
half of the things don't work.
I think that the stock price of the Caldera stock reflects the company
very well.
Is there a distribution that has: teTeX, grace, acroread4.05, xfig,
xemacs
and is easy to upgrade. Debian only recently I heard has a normal
windows manager.
Cheers, Krastan
==============FD7FDDB1C6DC31CA910F9E81
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="krastan.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Krastan B. Blagoev
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="krastan.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:B. Blagoev;Krastan
tel;fax:+1 617 552 3578
tel;home:+1 781 396 1085
tel;work:+1 617 552 3575
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Boston College;Department of Physics
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:ICAM Research Assistant Professor
note:ICAM - Institute for Complex Adaptive Matter
adr;quoted-printable:;;Physics Department=0D=0ABoston College;Chestnut
Hill;Massachusetts;02467;USA
x-mozilla-cpt:;-2048
fn:Krastan B. Blagoev
end:vcard
==============FD7FDDB1C6DC31CA910F9E81==
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
