Linux-Advocacy Digest #26, Volume #30 Fri, 3 Nov 00 23:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Giuliano Colla)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Ethernet efficiency (was Re: Ms employees begging for food) ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: windows as a server ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Software companies better than tire companies?? Please. (Was: Tuff.. ("Chad
Myers")
Re: Microsoft Speaks German! ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 02:02:08 GMT
Steve Mentzer wrote:
>
> >Sorry, you're so used to shit that you're starting to believe it's
> >chocolate. No application can leave a device in an unknown state, unless
> >the driver is buggy, because Linux, like every other OS, except those
> >coming from Redmond, will take care to free the resources allocated by a
> >process when it terminates (either normally or crashing, doesn't
> >matter), leaving all devices in a well known and predictable state.
> >
>
> If an application leaves a device in a specific state, and the driver fails to
> clean up after itself on process termination, then it is feasible for ANY OS to
> experience the same situation.
Correct, but while any OS is affected by a buggy driver, Windows is
affected by a buggy application, because if the application crashes (and
applications do crash), the OS doesn't perform the required cleanup,
because of intrinsic design limitations, which I'll try to explain in
detail further on, if you have the patience.
>
> >
> >You mean that a problem in a video driver will automatically reboot
> >Linux? Please do explain how, because I'm starting to think that either
> >you know really a lot about Linux, or you don't know what you're talking
> >about.
> >
>
> Two words. Kernel Panic.
Kernel Panic doesn't reboot. It may be a little difference, but tells a
lot about sound design and sloppy design.
>
> I am not referring to video-specific issues, but in theory, any kernel level
> process/driver that experiences a hiccup can send Linux into a panic, Novell
> into Abend, or NT into BSOD.
Any car may crash, but a car with bad brakes, poor visibility, bad
suspensions, and generally poor design has much more probabilities to
crash.
>
> The fact that the video subsystem resides in kernel space in NT/2000 is a
> performance enhancement that introduces risk to the OS stability. However,
> properly designed and tested drivers do not experience these stability issues,
> nullifying the entire issue.
The inability of properly partitioning the functionality, isolating the
critical parts is exactly the kind of bad design I was speaking of. As
the video subsystem is the more subject to third party contributions,
because of the abundance of video boards, you are proving exactly my
point.
It's very easy to get performance if you sacrifice robustness. But in
that case the reason isn't performance, it's anti-competitiveness. Do
you remember a court order imposing Windows 3.x to be sold as a separate
product than DOS, in order to permit competition? After that MS started
bundling everything, and to hell with stability (which wasn't that good
to start with)!
[snip]
> >
> >You skipped the *reliably* portion. The rest is trivial.
> >
>
> Killing server processes (services) under Win2k can be "reliably" performed via
> the server manager, or via the "net stop/start" commands at the command prompt.
> Provided you have administrator level access to the machine, these services can
> be restarted at will (similar to ./named restart).
What he meant is that you're prone to get a BSOD after that or a total
freeze, or weird behavior. Usually you don't kill a process out of
whims, but because something seems not to work properly, and in that
case, when killing is really useful, killing works badly.
>
> User level processes, when terminated release all resources allocated within
> their virtual address space. I have never seen a user-level process that was
> unable to be killed via the task manager.
>
> If a service fails to respond to a stop signal under WinNT/2000 and doesn't
> handle it correctly, it is a software issue, not an OS issue. For instance, if
> I write a service that corrupts a file when it is stopped, this isn't the fault
> of the OS. It is my fault for writing crappy software...
No, sorry, you appear not to grasp what an OS is intended to do. We
can't go on like that. I cut here, and I try to explain the full matter
as I see it. Then, if you have the patience to read it, you will judge
by yourself.
[snipped all the rest]
I started dealing with computers in the mid 60's, and since then my main
line has been designing process control systems, which usually require
real time OS's. Because of that I've been using many real-time OS's for
the applications, and normal, single user or multi-user ones for
software development. As requirements are sometimes non-standard, I've
designed a number of special purpose real-time OS's, and also a general
purpose one, used in a military minicomputer in the mid 70's. I don't
claim to be a genius, but I've built a good experience.
An OS is intended to run your applications. If it's multitasking it must
run many applications concurrently, and becomes very similar to a
real-time system, except that you're much less paranoid about interrupt
latency, and your scheduling algorithm optimizes average performance
instead of worst case performance.
The x86 architecture is perhaps the best existing as far as OS stability
is concerned, provided you exploit it. It offers the "protected mode",
which permits to do the following:
For each process, kernel included, you may define an area, which is a
collection of memory segments, some of which can be defined as
read-only, some as read-write. Each process may have also an
input/output area assigned. The hardware performs a validity check for
each segment access, so that e.g. a stack overflow or underflow is
trapped even if the stack segment is physically contiguous to the data
or heap segment of the same process.
To have the kernel run in its own protected space. Any application
trying to access that area is trapped to a kernel routine which decides
what to do. On the contrary the kernel may access any area it needs to.
To have each application run in its own protected space. Any application
trying to access any area outside his own is trapped the same way.
This scheme is very safe and imposes no performance penalty, but
requires a lot of careful planning and design.
To achieve good stability, the kernel must be limited to its basic tasks
which are just resource allocation, process scheduling and IPC. Any
other system activity can be devoted to processes running as
applications, as they are fully protected, and their bugs shouldn't
affect the kernel.
All the resources are allocated by the kernel, which must keep track of
what belongs to whom, in a nice simple table which is provided as a
hardware function. (GTD and LTD)
But here you have a number of problems:
as processes don't have any common memory area, inter-process
communication must be provided by kernel, and it must be designed in
such a way as to foresee all the reasonable needs.
If you want to avoid that a corrupted disk file crashes your system,
even program loading must be a process outside the kernel. This requires
that executable have such a form that the loader can read a program
header, understand the required resources, ask the kernel, and then load
the program.
Dynamic libraries can be shared between processes: they must be loaded
in read-only segments, which belong to a more than one process. This
means that DLL's must be designed in such a way as not to require a
read-write data area, which would permit a process to damage another
one.
One of the most critical point is the way the kernel deals with user
requests. A nice way to fool this scheme is to ask the kernel to write
something in the wrong place, as this will override any hardware
protection. Therefore it's crucial that the kernel has a clear vision of
how resources are allocated, and performs a validity check on each
request. The less the kernel functions are, the easier to guarantee a
bug free kernel.
Interrupt processing is another critical point: an interrupt handler may
operate in its own area, but must be granted slightly higher privileges
than any user process, because it must perform I/O activity. The less an
interrupt handler does, the best.
The rest of the I/O related activities can be devoted to device drivers,
which, for all practical purposes are just like application processes,
unable to do any harm.
If you need to run DOS applications, there is a special mode which is
called VM86, which provides another protected area where 16 bits 8086
programs can be run, without endangering other applications. Bios calls
can be trapped and either executed or simulated, and the same holds for
direct I/O requests.
Those guidelines aren't my whims. They're explained in the "80386 System
Software Writer's Guide" (c) Intel Corporation 1987.
I've used Intel's RMX, a real-time OS which is written following those
rules, and I found it very good and reliable, but unfortunately Intel
(because of MS pressures) has shut its software section. Linux follows
almost completely those rules, and is good and reliable.
Well, Windows doesn't follow almost any of those rules, and therefore is
unstable, unreliable and crappy. I'm currently using both Win 95 and Win
NT, write applications intended to run in both environments, but having
some experience I can realize what ticks in the box. Windows 9x appears
not to use even the most elementary kernel protection, while Windows NT
seems to use a scheme of kernel area/user area, similar to the one used
in the minicomputers of the 60's.
The reasons for intrinsic unstability are the following:
Applications are not protected from other applications. A trivial error
may lead to a wrong pointer, which will address a wrong memory area.
This may go completely undetected until the wrong memory area is taken
by vital data, or code of another application. So you have bugs which
are impossible to detect, because the OS doesn't care, and which may
harm other applications, making it almost impossible to tell where the
problem comes from.
Not providing each process with its own space, makes it impossible for
the kernel to perform a validity check of the kernel requests, leading
to more unpredictable results. Moreover, the kernel cannot free the
resources of a crashed application, because simply it doesn't know what
they are. If a process doesn't respond to the stop signal, because it's
frozen, the kernel tries to figure out what to do, but in many instances
it figures wrong (it's not so easy, once you've taken the wrong way, I
must admit it), and you end up with a BSOD. The "memory leakage"
problems, which in "real" OS's come from lack of optimization of memory
allocation algorithms, in Windows come from crappy implementation.
The huge number of API's piled up, adds to the problem. Having stuffed
up everything into the kernel, and being obliged to put into the kernel
third party drivers, adds again to the problem.
But I don't see a way out. MS doesn't care too much about compatibility,
but rewriting the OS in such a way as to make it reliable means to loose
any compatibility with everything existing. API's, inter process
communication, DLL's, device drivers, maybe even the format of .EXE
files must be changed.
That's why, after having been used to honest to God OS's, using Windows
makes me mad. That's also why I'm not interested in using Win2k until
I'm forced to, because it runs too many Windows NT applications to be
really different. They just underwent an enormous debugging project, but
they piled up new software, which, given the architecture they've chosen
is simply *impossible* to declare bug free, because "harmless" bugs go
undetected until they become harmful.
It's quite possible to find an installation where bugs remain
"harmless", and which works fine, but it's just a statistical
fluctuation which doesn't change the basic fact. The design is
amateurish, the implementation is sloppy, the result is crappy.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 02:02:40 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Steve Mentzer wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Server-level processes cannot be killed. The same holds true for linux,
> unless
> > > you are su.
> >
> > In other words, what can be done with linux, by typing "su" and a
> > password, can't be done in Win2k, and you're forced to reboot.
>
> runas command.
Could you give some details? There's no trace of runas in NT on-line
doc, I tried help runas and I got sort of " no help available for runas,
try runas /?". I tried runas /? to be told that /? is neither an
executable nor a batch file. Maybe it does a lot, but documentation
appears a bit concise!
[snip]
> >
> > I have some feeling that he knows pretty well what he's talking about:
> > sloppy design.
>
> No he doesn't. You are all too eager to blame MS for anything.
>
When a computer locks in such a way that you can't even power it down,
you can't call it the top of design art!
[snip]
> > A lot of OS's have a good sound design, and maybe some bugs, which can
> > be described, reproduced, and a work-around can be found. Windows has an
> > amateurish design which make it intrinsically buggy, unreliable,
> > unpredictable, and unsafe.
>
> Have you even used 2K?
I haven't and I'll avoid it as long as possible. I might just cut that
way, or give a full length explanation. If you have the patience, please
read my answer to Steve Mentzer in this same thread, so I'll avoid to
post the same long explanation twice.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:04:22 -0600
"Bill Vermillion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> So, like, why don't we see Unix e-mail viruses?
>
> >Not enough people interested in making them?
>
> Well unless you consistanly run as root the worst any email virus
> could do would be wipe out your own files. Why write a virus if
> you can't nuke the entire system :-).
Lots of viruses have been written which do just that. Melissa and ILOVEYOU
could be accomplished without any special priveledges. They just need to
grep the users home directory for email addresses to mail itself to.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ethernet efficiency (was Re: Ms employees begging for food)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 02:05:20 GMT
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Replacing hubs with switches will often fix things with
> > no one realizing why.
>
> Unless you replace them with NetGear mini-switches. We just tried to
> do that with an FS108 and it causes no end of ethernet errors.
Actually putting in any 10/100 switch can shake out cable problems
in systems that ran fine at 10M. You really want cat 5 everywhere,
including the jumpers from the wall to PC. Apparently some
noise that would be ignored by 10M equipment confuses them. Also,
there are many combinations that don't auto-negotiate correctly
so you may have to lock the speed or duplex in the configurations.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 12:37:11 +1000
"joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tvj5b$8aa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8tug1j$ci5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> > > And Kevin Mitnick didn't make the worm. It was a worm, not a virus.
> The
> > > distinction is important.
> >
> > Most of these "email viruses" are as much a worm as they are a virus.
>
> No. These e-mail viri are a viri. That's why each is called a virus
> and not a worm. They infect and corrupt a system - even deleting files.
But they don't attach themselves to other files, which is something viruses
do. And they actively self replicate over the network, which is something
worms do.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: windows as a server
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 02:26:40 GMT
My sincerest congratulations to you. Your work is an admirable effort to
make sense of the webserver marketshare mess. Certainly as informative
as anything that Gartner Group or IDC has done recently, and the rest of
us can appreciate it for a lot less money than either of those two asks
for the same research.
I hope that you'll do this again and again at some regular interval so
we can look for trends in the webserver marketspace as well.
And again, thanks for putting forth the effort. It was a good read.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 02:53:42 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:FhFM5.121651$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Neither is there in Windows, so your point is.....?
> >
> > How do you 'open' an attachment as a data file making sure
> > you don't execute any content that it contains before you
> > see what it is?
>
> You save it as a file and then scan it with your virus scanner.
>
> Or open it with notepad which does not execute any .exe's or macros.
Gotta love that Windows ease of use and carefully designed interface...
> Saving an attachment to disk does not execute it.
But if someone double-clicks it instead of starting the other app to
access it you are still fried.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 01:33:55 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:AVCM5.121602$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:dMsM5.12789$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:yDqM5.121003$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > > The OpenBSD people claim they are usually 6 months ahead of
> Linux/Unix
> > > in
> > > > > fixing exploits.
> > > > >
> > > > > Go ahead and sleep through those 6 months of "open" vulnerabilities.
> > > >
> > > > Why don't you ask them how many years they are ahead of anything
> > > > from Microsoft?
> > >
> > > What percentage of the market does the secure open source project
> > (OpenBSD)
> > > hold compared to the insecure one (Linux) ?
> >
> > Probably 1% - and there are some good reasons for that.
> >
> > > And why do so many open source programs have holes in them?
> >
> > All large programs have holes in them. The open source ones
> > get fixed quickly where closed source ones can be exploited for
> > years by the smaller number of people who know about them and
> > withold that knowledge.
>
> While some of the holes in Linux get fixed quickly (and the OpenBSD people
> seem to think "quickly" is 6 months faster than Linux people think it is)
> many are not fixed. ANd many of the fixes are not implimented by the users.
>
> >
> > > Why do script kiddies prefer Linux to break into and install DDOS tools?
> > >
> > > Because Linux is an open door by default!
> >
> > Early versions have had problems. The real reason is that compared
> > to Windows, Linux is much more useful after you gain access.
>
> A Linux fantasy.
>
> The real answer is it's a lot easier to break in to a Linux box. Thats why
> the kiddies target Linux.
I hear they're extending the patented EZ-HACK(tm) and EZ-DDoS(tm) features
into the 2.4 kernel when it ships in 2004.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Software companies better than tire companies?? Please. (Was: Tuff..
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 01:39:10 GMT
"Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3XCM5.2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 18:38:08 GMT,
> > Chad Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >> It is most likely in a CM system with a directory structure. Browse
> > >> the directories. Also, a former MS employee would know exactly where
> > >> to go. Or maybe a disgruntled but not yet former MS employee. Or maybe
> > >> a MS employee taking bribes from corporate or international spies who
> > >> wants the code. Does MS do background investigations on all of it's
> > >> employees??
> > >>
> > >
> > >Actually it's most likely in Source Safe that adds another level of
> > >security, logging of all changes and restricting changes. It is
> possible,
> > >and probable, that the intruder could only view the software without
> access
> > >to change it.
> >
> > Yes, it's possible. It's also *possible* he got write access to it.
> > BTW, VSS can be cracked as easily as anything else MS does.
> >
>
> Sure
>
> > >> >C> How many workers do you think MS has that not only has full access
> to
> > >all
> > >> >the source codes to all the products, but also free and unlimited
> access
> > >to
> > >> >MS site?
> > >>
> > >> You put a sniffer on the network and sniff all the users passwords.
> > >>
> > >
> > >NTLM Passwords aren't in the clear.
> >
> > NTLM isn't the only protocol used on their networks, and users use the
> > same passwords for many things. NTLM encryption keys can also
> > be obtained if you crack the PDC.
> >
>
> That requires more than
> <quote>
> You put a sniffer on the network and sniff all the users passwords.
> </quote>
>
> IAC, That aint easy on a properly administered system.
>
> > >>
> > >> closed source software:
> > >> requires blind trust in people solely out to make money
> > >
> > >Requires trust in a group of people with an understandable motivation.
> >
> > A motivation that has no interest in your interests, and every interest
> > to exploit you. Yet you trust them totally blindly.
> >
>
> Understanding the motivation enables an intelligent person to predict
> actions and thereby anticipate problems.
>
> > >> no public review.
> > >
> > >Reviewed in the market. If the stuff is bad it won't sell.
> >
> > Source code is not reviewed. Were talking about source code. Do you
> > even know what that is?? Security holes Trojans don't come out and
> > announce themselves to you.
> >
>
> The only true review of source code is running it. I was writing programs
> when you were in diapers Perry. And actually they do, in a professional
> testing environment. BTW have you heard of a debugger.
>
> > >> You never know for sure
> > >>
> > >> open source software:
> > >> requires cautious trust in people giving away code,
> > >
> > >Requires trust in an unstable element who's only motivation is ego
> building.
> >
> > Bullshit. Provide some *proof* that OSS developers are any more
> > "unstable" than closed source developers. A closed source developer can
> quit
> > his job anytime, leaving no one in the company who understands the code,
> and
> > thus, no one in the world.
> >
>
> Two anecdotal examples:
>
> 1> I was installing Slackware on an IBM PS2 model 70 with Microchannel and
> I couldn't get the ethernet working, I checked the how to's, emailed the
> programmer my problem. The response I received was that his code was
> perfect and I must not be one of the annointed and therefore unworthy of
> assistance.
>
> 2> Compaq's IPAQ, they are marketing it for release but the OS, Linux 2.4
> won't be ready in time.
>
>
> > And as far as ego problems are concerned, Windows advocates take the
> > cake. For example: http://ic.net/~drestinb/ "Computer Guru". Oh I'm
> > so impressed!!
> >
> > >> is subject to public review.
> > >
> > >Self review (AKA Peer Review) is inherently ineffective,
> >
> > 1) Public != Peer != Self.
> >
>
> What body, then, reviews the reviewers for accuraccy?
>
> > 2) OSS is open for the public to see. That can't be less effective than
> > no source available for independant review.
> >
> > 3) Why don't you provide some *proof* to whatever it is you are saying
> > is ineffective.
> >
> > >this is why
> > >software companies dont have programmers doing QA.
> > >
> >
> > Software companies dont have *anyone* doing QA becuase they have
> > licensing agreements that absolve them of responsibility for the bugs
> > in the code. And we were talking about trojans in close source code
> > software. QA people wouldn't find that.
> >
>
> Wrong answer.
I can vouch that MS has extensive QA, unit tests and many test harnesses
for all their products. The man that sits in the desk 4' away from me
worked as a test harness developer for MS and wrote unit tests for
Commerce Server 4 when it was in testing. He said they had armies
of QA testers and developers writing testing code that tested, verbatim,
the requirements and user stories in the MRDs and developer documentation.
This is probably one of the reasons why Windows can detect RAM in any
system and Linux cannot.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft Speaks German!
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 01:45:38 GMT
"Ilja Booij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tun8a$5l88j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <GA%L5.27546$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Ilja Booij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8tpknp$5t9c8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "chrisv"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Europe is the heart of our Western Culture.
> >> >
> >> > No it's not. Western culture is more and more American culture.
> >> >
> >> >>Anything which comes forth from Europe generally ends up spreading
> >> >>across the world.
> >> >
> >> > No it doesn't. America's influence is much stronger than Europe's.
> >> >
> >> > Don't want to start an argument. Just stating facts.
> >> Nice facts.. do you have any proof of these facts?
> >>
> >> of course there are a lot of things from the US spreading in Europe,
> >> mostly to do with popular culture. now look at (the more important
> >> things like) politics, business, etc not to much US-like-models to be
> >> found there!
> >
> > Is that a good thing?
> >
> > Juding by how the Europe economy is doing, I'd say no. They could learn
> > a few thousand things from the U.S.
> I'm sorry, I'm not seeing a bad economy where i live. in fact, the
> economy is growing quite rapidly. maybe not growing as fast as in the us,
> but i we talk quality of life i don't see a big difference.
> i'd rather have 6 weeks of free time a year, than earn more and and get
> just 2 or 3 weeks of!
The euro is way down.
It's because we take 2-3 weeks off that you guys can take 6.
American's aren't lazy, we do all the work so Europeans can be snooty to
us.
>
> >
> > It wouldn't be so bad if it didn't result in the jeapordization of our
> > (U.S. and Europe's) security with France selling armaments
> > (including some nuclear secrets!) to Iraq and Iran. Now Russia's
> > doing it to!
> i didn't really include russia in europe (ok, it's europe, but i meant
> western europe.)
I wasn't implying that Russia was part of Europe (like you said, it could
technically be part of it, at least the west site of the Urals, but I
wasn't referring to that). I was implying that Europeans have started a
trend and now Russia is following suit.
> if you're talking about france selling these secrets
They're not selling secrets, really, they're selling armaments and
assisting Iraq set up nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities.
> than please enlighten me on U.S trade with China (on of the most
> undemocratic countries in the world!)
It's because our corrupt liberal government (Clinton/Gore) have saw
fit to sell out morality, safety, and honor in favor of more campaign
contributions.
Gore even helped broker the Russian deal with Iran! <sigh... shaking
head>
Don't get me started on Clinton/Gore... American's are fixing that,
however, G.W.Bush is in the lead and will rectify the situation.
> let me add that i also think the french are stupid for selling these
> armaments.
We are in complete agreement!
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
