Linux-Advocacy Digest #68, Volume #30 Sun, 5 Nov 00 20:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: more stuff I wish linux did (JoeX1029)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Ethernet efficiency (was Re: Ms employees begging for food) (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux (JoeX1029)
Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did (Craig Kelley)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: If Microsoft Made Cars: ("Gavin Cato")
Re: KDE vs GNOME: specific issues ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: If Microsoft Made Cars: (mlw)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Lars Poulsen)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Joe Doupnik)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: more stuff I wish linux did
Date: 06 Nov 2000 00:11:55 GMT
>I was using a windoze box just now and realized some more stuff I wish
>linux did:
>
>1) I wish I had to download a 20MB web browser intensly hooked into my
>desktop
>in order to burn CD's. I don't use the thing, but I love having as much
>stuff
>on my system as possible. The more stuff that loads at system bootup, the
>more
>interesting things are.
>
>2) I wish I could trash 2 CDRs because the OS forgot how to talk to the CD
>burner. I get bored when things always work.
>
>3) and last of which, I really want to use software that won't write to a
>network drive (version 4.x of the adaptec cd-burner software) because they
>know
>better than me that a 2MB/s scsi-2 drive is *always* faster than 15MB/s
>ultra-2
>scsi drive on the other end of a 100mbps network. I'm so glad that windoze
>software writers know so much. I'm glad that they know that I couldn't
>possibly
>want to use my empty 3.3GB drive instead of a subdirectory of where the
>software
>was installed. It should require fifteen mouseclicks to over-ride doing
>that.
>Using the empty drive is *so* dangerous!
Here are somethings *I* wish GNU/Linux did:
1) Every time i change network setting i want to reboot, not rebooting saves
waaay to much time.
2) I wish X would crash as much as does Windows, then i would have a reason for
not doing anything
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 02:17:07 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said . in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> [...]
> >> You can do the *same* for win9x/nt, but you didn't really look, did
you?
> >
> >You can do the same, but I've only ever heard of one attempt...
> >http://www.litestep.net
> >
> >Are there any others that people could recommend?
>
> There's none at all that I could recommend. The native Windows desktop
> is unreliable enough; why compound the problems by trying to use a
> non-Microsoft product on MS's proprietary code known to be developed
> with anti-competitive dysfunction purposefully added?
Maybe, I won't try to argue with you about this, as I don't really care much
in this subject.
Skinning windows:
LiteStep (open source, free) (www.litestep.com)
WindowBlinds (Close source, free but slightly limited version, cost money
for the full version) {Recommended} (www.stardock.com)
That was the one I was thinking about, totally new interfaces and quite
stable.
You might want to check into DesktopX as well.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 10:20:31 +1000
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ewiN5.13207$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:kBgN5.123491$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It gives the same error message whether the program that might
> > > > > view it is allowed to execute insecure commands from the
> > > > > attachment itself or not. When the warning is given all
> > > > > the time with no way to tell if there is a problem or not
> > > > > people will just ignore it.
> > > >
> > > > What error message?
> > > > It warns you that the attachment (any type) may harm you, and ask
you
> > what
> > > > you want to do with it.
> > >
> > > But, it does not tell you what is going to run if you choose 'open'.
> >
> > Actually, it does in most cases. A .doc file has a Word icon beside it,
an
> > XLS file has an Excel icon beside the attachment etc.
>
> Neat - why don't they draw a picture of a bug when the attachment
> has a virus?
When you can identify such an attachment, be sure to patent the process -
you'll make millions.
------------------------------
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)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 05 Nov 2000 17:22:18 -0700
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "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.
Thanks for the info! I'll try swapping the cables on Monday (our
beowulf cluster would appreciaate getting off the hub).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: Linux
Date: 06 Nov 2000 00:24:25 GMT
>And Doom on NeXTStep, and DOOM 3 will be developed on MacOS X.
>Carmack is a NeXT fan more than a Linux fan. He also likes the MS IDE.
John Caramack also wrote a NeXTSTEP Quake port. Dunno what happened to it
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 05 Nov 2000 17:28:35 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Raffael Cavallaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > Linux distros, by contrast, can be, and are checked by the many who work
> > on them. Even if some code is compormised on one server, Linux as a
> > whole can be verified, can be checked.
>
> So you're saying that if someone said "I've managed to plant a time bomb
> somewhere in the <insert distribution here> source code" You'd be able
> to find it in a timely, reasonable manor? ROFL...
>
> You know as well as I that only a small fraction of the code actually gets
> reviewed by someone other than its original author.
Well, as the author of 3 different packages, I can tell you that I've
recieved security and feature patches for all three of them.
Perhaps nobody reads *your* sourcecode Chad; the reasons why may
be varied...
> > Who is going to check Microsoft's code to see if it has been
> > compromised?
>
> The dozen or so professional auditing firms that they contract that
> pour over the code day and night. Much more effective, well trained,
> and more dedicated than the weekend-programmer of questionable experience
> pouring over his minute fraction of the Linux code.
Our Linux SMTP server is still deflecting Melissa clones even now. We
had over a dozen try to get through in the last week. This is from a
virus that is over two years old.
These professioonal "auditing firms" ought to be audited.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 02:34:34 +0200
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I suspect you read "WSH" as "Win shell", rather than "Windows
Scripting
> > > Host". WSH is that oh-so-convenient service in Windows which runs
> > > scripts for you from, say, email attachments. This, along with the
> > > access to the operating system which VB gives you (and anyone else),
as
> > > you mentioned, is what makes it possible to so easily say ILOVEYOU to
> > > all your friends (and everyone else in your address book) and delete
> > > files randomly from your hard drive at the same time.
> > >
> > > How convenient.
> > >
> > > I'd prefer batch files. ;-\
> >
> > Batch files?
> >
> > echo format c:/q/y > c:\autoexec.bat >> null
> >
> > Guess what happens when you reboot?
> >
> > Not very secure.
>
> So, Win scripting host -> insecure
> batch files -> insecure
> windows -> I think you can see the pattern emerging.
BTW, that sort of thing wouldn't work on NT, you know this, right?
9x insecute? who would argue with you?
The fact that *everyone* is root/administrator is a bad idea to start with.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 02:38:25 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> > > [...]
> > > >I haven't seen wsh, but I'd guess up front that it's a half-assed
> > > >implementation, unless a third-party wrote it.
> > >
> > > I suspect you read "WSH" as "Win shell", rather than "Windows
Scripting
> > > Host". WSH is that oh-so-convenient service in Windows which runs
> > > scripts for you from, say, email attachments. This, along with the
> > > access to the operating system which VB gives you (and anyone else),
as
> > > you mentioned, is what makes it possible to so easily say ILOVEYOU to
> > > all your friends (and everyone else in your address book) and delete
> > > files randomly from your hard drive at the same time.
> > >
> > > How convenient.
> > >
> > > I'd prefer batch files. ;-\
> >
> > Batch files?
> >
> > echo format c:/q/y > c:\autoexec.bat >> null
> >
> > Guess what happens when you reboot?
> >
> > Not very secure.
>
> You've just shown how crappy is the "security model" of Windows 9x.
> However you example won't work in Win NT 4. Would it work with Win 2000?
Of course not, 2000 doesn't assume that if you have access (physical or
otherwise) you are suddenly all-mighty god and obeys your every command.
Beside, autoexec.bat only work for 95/98 anyway, ME wouldn't be affected by
this.
Someone please find a win95 machine that require a logon.
Type nothing to the logon screen, click ctrl+esc. you get full and
unrestricted access to the system. You *never* logon.
(won't work on 98, btw)
9x security model = non existant.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:50:33 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said 2 in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>The kind of people who use word to do html aren't going to edit it
>afterwards. It also gives pretty poor html, you'd be better off doing it
>by hand, or using something designed to make web pages.
I use Word to do html. I kind of like the way it switches back and
forth between text and web presentations. I also dive into the
resulting html file and do hand-edits. I'm not much of an HTML guru by
any stretch of the imagination, and to be honest, I don't use it to
design web pages. I just write documents (generally from a template
document) which can be viewed conveniently in a web browser. If these
weren't relatively trivial documents, written quickly, routinely
modified, and without any need to prevent further editing post-delivery,
I'd use Acrobat. But that would make things much more difficult, and
without any benefit, in my circumstance.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 10:47:18 +1000
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:EYhN5.13200$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8u40bt$hf3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > But, it does not tell you what is going to run if you choose 'open'.
> >
> > If people are dumb enough to open attachments they know nothing about,
do
> > you really think knowing what program was going to open it would help ?
>
> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
> that allows the content to take control.
Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
> > > > YOU choose whatever to ignore it or not.
> > >
> > > How can you make a reasonable choice with no relevant
> > > information?
> >
> > How would knowing that the file was going to be opened by the program
> > "vbscript" help the average user ?
>
> The mailer should know that it is not in the list of
> harmless programs (if there is such a thing under windows)
> and not run it. For harmless programs there is no need for
> the annoying warning.
Where can I find this list of "harmless programs" under other OSes ? Who
maintains it ?
> > > > I'm talking about users either ignoring or disabling the warning
that
> > > > outlook issues them when they try to open an attachment. How can you
> > blame
> > > > the OS/Outlook for the users *ignoring* very clear warning?
> > >
> > > It is not clear at all.
> >
> > It is perfectly clear. "Do this and it might break your system". How
> much
> > clearer can it be ?
>
> It is not clear.
I see. If the machine started playing Hall of the Mountain King, flashed
the screen red and poppoed the CDROM tray in and out, would that be clear
enough ?
> How many corporate and government offices
> have to have their systems shut down by viruses to prove it?
Dumb people will always be dumb. No amount of warnings will save them.
> > > Opening mail is a typical thing to do and
> > > there is no way of knowing what will happen if you do.
> >
> > Sure there is. Opening the mail does nothing. Opening the _attachment_
> wil
> > launch another program.
> >
> > Please don't try to propogate the myth that simply opening the email
will
> > execute the attachment.
>
> OK, viewing the attachments to mail is a typical thing to do.
> And we are back where we started.
>
> >
> > Bullshit. Any mailer that allows an attachment to be handed off to a
> shell
> > to be delt with does _exactly the same thing_.
>
> That's the point. They don't blindly hand off to a shell that
> knows nothing about the content source.
Sure they do. What checking does pine do before piping an attachment to the
program I tell it to ?
> > Pine in Unix, for example.
>
> Wrong.
Right.
>
> > KMail in KDE, for another.
>
> I haven't tried that one but I would bet that it never
> feeds an attachment to the shell when you open it.
It feeds the attachment to whatever program you have defined to handle that
attachment. At least, that's the impression I've gotten.
> > I don't know personally of any Mac mailers which do the same thing, but
I
> > have no doubt most of them do.
>
> You would be able to tell by the number of reported virus attacks.
What makes you think the two have any correlation ?
> > I guess that makes Outlook a reasonable mailer, since the list is
> > configurable. The list is in the registry and determined by filetype.
It
> > is the shell that actually executes the program.
>
> If you think it is reasonable to have to configure your entire system
> to never execute shell and interpreter programs just so you can
> use email safely. I don't.
I think it is reasonable to exercise common sense.
> > Just like, say, KDE. Mime types mapped to programs.
> >
> > This is called "reusing resources". Instead of having to have filetypes
> > defined in every app, they are defined globally.
>
> It is called insanity. The uses aren't equivalent and thus
> shouldn't be treated the same.
The uses are equivalent. Double clicking an attachment is the same thing to
the end user as double clicking any other icon.
> > > These do not include script interpreters.
> >
> > Depending on your config. They *might* include script interpreters.
> There
> > is no intrinsic reason why they can't.
>
> If you enjoy spreading virii at someone else's whim.
They only get spread at the whim of the person opening the attachment.
> > > Outlook doesn't even know what it is about to start.
> >
> > Because *it* doesn't start it. Outlook hands the file off to the
*shell*
> to
> > be dealt with.
>
> If it wasn't obvious from the start that this is an insane design,
> hindsight should make it clear. If you are going to do that you
> at least need some sort of 'safe' environment like the java
> sandbox.
------------------------------
From: "Gavin Cato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: If Microsoft Made Cars:
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:49:41 +1100
Do you want to pull anything else out of your hat that we all heard years
ago you twit?
"javaduke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a05d797$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> In an effort to express the accomplishments of Microsoft in understandable
> terms, Bill Gates made the following comparison with General Motors
products:
> He said, "If automotive technology had kept pace with computer technology
> over the past few decades, you would now be driving a V-32 instead of a
V-8,
> and it would have a top speed of 10,000 miles/hour (160,000 km/hr). Or you
> could have an economy car that weighs 30 pounds (14 kilos) and gets a
thousand
> miles to the gallon of gas. In either case, the sticker of the new car
would
> be less than $50.00." End of statement. GM responded by pointing out that
> if GM built cars that operated like Microsoft products: You'd have a car
> that crashes 4 times a day. Every time they repainted the lines on the
road,
> you'd have to buy a new car. Your car would constantly die on the freeway
> for no reason, and you would just accept this as a normal part of
operations
> and drive on. Your car would also stop and fail to restart, and you'd have
> to reinstall the engine. For some strange reason, you'd just accept this,
> too. You could only have one person in the car at a time unless you bought
> a Car95 or a CarNT. But then you'd have to buy more seats. (Macintosh
would
> make a car that was powered by the Sun, was twice as fast, twice as easy
> to drive-but would only run on 5 percent of the roads. Macintosh car
owners
> could get expensive Microsoft upgrades to their cars, which would make
their
> cars run much slower.) To continue, the oil, engine, gas, and alternator
> warning lights would all be combined into a single "General Auto
Protection
> Fault" warning light that, when lit, would oblige you to stop your car in
> the middle of the highway and restart it. New seats would force everyone
> to have the same size butt. If you were involved in a crash, you would
never
> be able to determine the real cause of the crash. Finally, the airbag
system
> would ask you to press an "Are you sure?" button before deploying.
>
>
> http://www.zfree.co.nz
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
linux.redhat,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: KDE vs GNOME: specific issues
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 00:50:24 +0000
Jeff Jeffries wrote:
>
> I need to choose either GNOME or KDE. I will be doing computationally
> intensive C++, with very heavy disk I/O. Results will be displayed in 3D
> preferrably with OpenGL.
>
> 1. Are GNOME and KDE C++ and/or object oriented? How will this affect
> developing with C++?
>
> 2. I know GNOME has gtkglarea; does KDE?
>
> 3. What else should a C++ developer know?
>
> Thanks!
You're doing this software for X windows right? The particular widget
set you happen to choose should make a whole lot of difference to the
functionality of the software.
With regard point 1, the gcc compiler will work regardless of the window
manager you use. C++ is always object oriented. The only time the
window manager may come into play is when you develop th UI.
Tom
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: If Microsoft Made Cars:
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:53:34 -0500
Gavin Cato wrote:
>
> Do you want to pull anything else out of your hat that we all heard years
> ago you twit?
Give a break, the classics never go out of style.
>
> "javaduke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3a05d797$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > In an effort to express the accomplishments of Microsoft in understandable
> > terms, Bill Gates made the following comparison with General Motors
> products:
> > He said, "If automotive technology had kept pace with computer technology
> > over the past few decades, you would now be driving a V-32 instead of a
> V-8,
> > and it would have a top speed of 10,000 miles/hour (160,000 km/hr). Or you
> > could have an economy car that weighs 30 pounds (14 kilos) and gets a
> thousand
> > miles to the gallon of gas. In either case, the sticker of the new car
> would
> > be less than $50.00." End of statement. GM responded by pointing out that
> > if GM built cars that operated like Microsoft products: You'd have a car
> > that crashes 4 times a day. Every time they repainted the lines on the
> road,
> > you'd have to buy a new car. Your car would constantly die on the freeway
> > for no reason, and you would just accept this as a normal part of
> operations
> > and drive on. Your car would also stop and fail to restart, and you'd have
> > to reinstall the engine. For some strange reason, you'd just accept this,
> > too. You could only have one person in the car at a time unless you bought
> > a Car95 or a CarNT. But then you'd have to buy more seats. (Macintosh
> would
> > make a car that was powered by the Sun, was twice as fast, twice as easy
> > to drive-but would only run on 5 percent of the roads. Macintosh car
> owners
> > could get expensive Microsoft upgrades to their cars, which would make
> their
> > cars run much slower.) To continue, the oil, engine, gas, and alternator
> > warning lights would all be combined into a single "General Auto
> Protection
> > Fault" warning light that, when lit, would oblige you to stop your car in
> > the middle of the highway and restart it. New seats would force everyone
> > to have the same size butt. If you were involved in a crash, you would
> never
> > be able to determine the real cause of the crash. Finally, the airbag
> system
> > would ask you to press an "Are you sure?" button before deploying.
> >
> >
> > http://www.zfree.co.nz
> >
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 16:58:51 -0800
From: Lars Poulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> A large federal mortgage company used an FDDI-based campus backbone
> as a MAN/WAN hub. ... probes were reporting backbone utilization
> figures of ~45% all night, every night, as every one of their
> servers, ... the performance reporting system stated ... that the
> backbone was at 90% utilization all night, stretching in to the
> morning hours, consistently. How could one product say the ring was at
> saturation, and the other indicate that only half the available
> bandwidth was being used? It was my job to find out.
This is a good story, and does much to build your credibility.
However, the problem described seems to be specific to FDDI and
has no bearing on the ethernet loading issues under discussion here.
--
/ Lars Poulsen - http://www.cmc.com/lars - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
125 South Ontare Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93105 - +1-805-569-5277
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Doupnik)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: 5 Nov 00 17:50:57 MDT
>>>Please do run the tests.
>>
>> No. Tests are tests, not real life. I am only concerned with how
>> things work in real life, not tests. In this point in particular, since
>> I have a way of identifying and describing why tests of a physical
>> transmission technology are not deterministic predictors of operational
>> network performance, I'm not even going to briefly consider spending
>> times on such tests.
>>
>>>As a favorite book says "The data shall set
>>>you free" meaning there are facts available rather than speculation
>>>and opinions.
>>
>> Welcome to the post-post-modern world, where I'm afraid we must confront
>> the fact that distinguishing facts from speculation or opinions is
>> something of an academic exercise. I can understand why someone would
>> suppose that I was not more-or-less familiar with these facts, since, as
>> I mentioned above, I have already learned not to bother addressing them
>> for the most part. But the data did set me free, and now I'm trying to
>> set you free. Stop cracking me in the head while I'm trying to take
>> your blindfold off. Once you can see where you are, I'm sure you'll
>> understand the practicality of my network model, whether you agree with
>> its accuracy or consistency or not.
========
These excerpts seem to describe the current situation. Further
discussion seems to be fruitless.
Joe D.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
