Linux-Advocacy Digest #200, Volume #30 Sun, 12 Nov 00 22:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...) ("Bruce
Schuck")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Evan DiBiase")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Goldhammer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:46:02 -0600
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8unje1$rrq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And what base TCP code would not be compiled into a machine that's on
> the
> > internet? We're not talking about things like IP masquerading here.
> We're
> > talking about the core TCP code.
>
> compile all the socket crap into modules...But the you ignor my
> statemnet "you have NOT proven that they have the configuration
> REQUITRED to exploit the vunerability!" There are other conditions that
> must be met before this bug can be exploited! Can the exploit be
> prevented another way? Stoping spoofing at a rounter? Defragmenting at
> the fire wall? Filtering rulls? Does the exploit require a cetain socket
> to be open to exploit?
No, the exploits mentioned do *NOT* require a certain socket. *ANY* socket
is susceptable to the exploit. it's quite easy to scan a system to see
which ports are open and send malformed packets to any of them. The problem
is in the core code that effects all sockets, not in individual services.
The same TCP code is used by any socket implementation you use.
> > If you choose to bury your head in the sand and yell "I'm secure until
> you
> > prove i'm not" rather than be proactive, that's your choice.
>
> No, I just don't buy into the throw in every patch and assume your safe
> attitude of yours. I need to know what and why the patch is going in.
> What is the exploit am I really exposed. Information=power!
No, if you apply patches you don't assume you're safe, but it's as safe as
you can be until another exploit is found. Instead, you leave yourself open
by not applying patches which fix known exploits.
> By the way here is a LONG list of TCP sockets (GET IT) that can be
> turned on or off. The exploits you have listed could very well require
> that a certain TCP port be open (you have NOT given enough infromation
> to say ya or nay) Get it franky TCP! Even though this is TCP does the
> exploit require a cetain process to be running or does it require that a
> certian one of these ****TCP**** ports be open????
No, they don't require a certain port. If they did, then that would be
service code that is at fault, not TCP code. (GET IT).
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
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, 12 Nov 2000 21:46:07 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote...
[..]
> > Thankfully, others are seeing the light and prompting the user to create
> > the associations. The user then has to ask or find out what a file
> > association entails, then they can make an informed decision and control
> > their system in that respect.
>
> They may very well have asked during the install. How do you make
> an informed decision about whether a program you haven't installed
> or used yet should become the default handler for any data type?
The machine reaches the ignorant user who expects things to just work.
they don't even understand the concept of a default association. I never
said they are expected to make an informed decision in this setting. I
don't expect them to.
> And
> if windows is supposed to hide all of this stuff, why would the users
> be expected to know what the extension or the data type means?
Because of all that we're talking about ... security with respect to
external (data|files|scripts|executables) reaching them via e-mail.
Windows is setup so they don't have to know anything to get these
attachments to be run or opened via the appropriate installed
application. If you prevent this, they'll have to learn what to use to
run|open these attachments. The malicious takes advantage of this
ignorance.
> > You have to set it up to work for you. It cannot set itself up.
>
> This is the part of the argument I really can't understand. How
> can it be important for Windows to hide these details if in
> fact you are forced to understand them better than the people
> who set up the defaults?
No-one if forced to do anything. If you wish to keep your machine secure
by yourself and yet be able to run|open attachments selectively, *then*
you will need to know more. Most users aren't really concerned with
security. They're oblivious to what we're debating here. They just want
their machine to work! To cater to that sort of customer you have to
create these defaults.
> > A competent Windows user is never denied this ability. Use drag and drop
> > or simply open the application of choice and use file -> open.
>
> Outlook express (rember the problem here?) does not give you any
> file->open or open/with. I assume you can drag and drop if you
> have sufficiently cluttered your desktop with handlers but that is
> rarely convienent.
You can save to disk and then check it from there. Oh, that's even worse
right? :-)
> > Actually it's the system setup that determines what application is used
> > to open the attachment automatically after double clicking. This is all
> > done by associations, which is manipulatable.
>
> Yet there is no way to tell it the difference between an email
> attachment and a trusted file (the whole problem here and the
> one that no one is addressing).
Quite right. If you make a distinction that promotes security, then
you've thrown a spoke in the novices wheel. They simply want to run|view
their attachment. "What's the fuss. Why do I have to examine it first.
See here now, what's all this gibberish. I guess this e-mail attachment
stuff is not for me. It's all too complicated."
> > I feel the same way about UNIX since I learnt Windows and OS/2 before
> > looking at Linux.
>
> The claims of variations in unix versions are overblown - mostly hype
> from one vendor or another about how their additions are better. In
> fact it has always been easy to write programs that compile and run
> in almost all versions and shell and perl scripts are generally portable.
My criticism doesn't even go there. :-)
> > So?
>
> So the claims of complexity are equally overblown.
Definitely. I think you may be feeling that I personally support some of
my arguments with respect to the mindset of the novice and how its dealt
with or agree with the novices approach to computers, i.e., an approach
with resistance to learning as its central theme. When I say they need to
learn more you say that it's unreasonable that they should learn. I think
I'm beginning to get you now though. You seem to want them to learn BUT
only a particular approach which is yours. My approach is not suitable
because I advocate the position that attachments can be safely dealt with
in an easy way while using Windows. You have a problem with how Windows
treats attachments in general. Am I right?
> > The user doesn't handle the mailer correctly.
>
> The correct way is to delete the mailer if it treats attachments
> the same as files.
Aah. I see. :-)
> > If you have an ignorant user, you need a sysadmin to guide that user or
> > simply take away control from the user. Very nice arrangement in a
> > corporate setting. Not so nice in a SOHO user situation where the blind
> > is leading the blind or there's no one to immediately turn to. They have
> > to LEARN.
>
> The sysadmin can explain the difference between the content of an
> email attachment and files that the user has blessed with his trust, but
> if the mailer has no way to express that in action, what can they
> do about it?
I don't think we'll get much further than we have at this point since
Ayende and I have repeatedly gone over this very point with you and yet
you continue to ask.
> > Keeping up with his systems development is a moving target. Keeping up
> > with the world in general is a moving target. There's nothing strange
> > about that. We are well suited to dealing with a changing environment
> > because we can learn!!
>
> Then this should include switching to an OS with tools that have
> understood multi-user security concepts from the beginning.
I'm new here and should have realised that this is the essence of your
position from the beginning.
> > Of course, typical users show considerable resistance to learning about
> > their computers and what's happening because of the fear of information
> > overload. "Oh Lord, this is too complicated for me. Will I ever learn it.
> > " They're all too happy to hear that all they have to do is double click
> > the file and everything will be done for them. The unfortunate thing is
> > that associations being messed up is one of the many problems associated
> > with such an approach.
>
> This is precisely why the default action must consider the security
> context of the object you are touching. The user should not need to
> deal with that concept unless he wants to do something unusual.
That approach is good and I could personally deal with it, but it leads
to complexity that a novice will not welcome. There's definitely a reason
why UNIX remains where it is today. Those looking from outside in see why
this is blindingly obvious, but you guys looking out, are looking at your
reflections.
> > The typical user would flip if they are constantly being asked which
> > application to open the file with. They often start experimenting instead
> > of asking. You watch and see. File associations as they are in Windows
> > are there for a reason. UNIX OS's never had to cater to users like that
> > which Windows has to cater to. If these types of users do use UNIX it's
> > in a setting where the machines are setup and maintained by competent
> > sysadmins. The users are ignorant and at home with machines in front of
> > them. They wish for things to happen with minimal effort and without
> > having to constantly calling for help. For this to happen file
> > associations are necessary. These ignorant users are vulnerable and the
> > only way to cure their vulnerability is to warn them about dangerous
> > attachments and tell them about associations and how they may be
> > manipulated.
>
> Again, the argument makes no sense. You can't claim simultaneously that
> users need defaults because they can't make choices, yet at the same time
> they must know everything about how to configure and maintain those
> defaults.
I don't make that claim. You're not understanding me. Read again. They're
two separate arguments. I'm painting the picture of a dilemna to which
you think there's a simple easy solution ... the UNIX approach
apparently. Wrong.
> If you are going to give them defaults, then the defaults should
> do the correct thing.
They are doing the correct thing which is to make things simple and easy
for the user, but it has it's disadvantage ... compromised security.
Implement the secure approach and it has it's disadvantage .... lost
simplicity in exchange for added complexity from the word go, and as a
result a frustrated novice.
My additional argument is *IF* the novice sees the light after being
bitten or after reading, and so wishes to adopt a more secure approach
and is willing to take on the added complexity and learning involved with
such an approach, he can still use Windows. He can still use OE if he's
using it (God knows there are so many clients better than that trash
:->). He doesn't need to use another OS (God forbid UNIX) to achieve this
goal.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
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, 12 Nov 2000 21:46:13 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > > Your problem.
> > > > You *choose* to intetionly remain ignorant, that is your own problem.
> > >
> > > If you think memorizing a VBS icon is a step on the path of knowledge,
> > > suit yourself.
> >
> > Did you ever admin a linux machine?
> > You've to remember *way* more than a silly icon.
>
> You don't have to remember anything - it is logical enough that you can
> make it up as you go along.
You're really funny, you know that? :-)
You have quite a bit to learn before you reach that stage. Waaaaay more
than a novice needs to know to start getting their work done in Windows.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:46:20 -0500
JS/PL wrote...
>
> "Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
>
> > CC'd mail from ignorant user:
> >
> > "Hey guys, I got this nice little file off the net that does so and so.
> > It's wonderful. Just double click and run it." He doesn't know about the
> > trojan/virus planted there. He doesn't even mention where he got it.
> > Aferall that's irrelevant info in his ignorant mind. His fellow ignorant
> > buddies don't even ask either. This a way too common situation.
>
> Future Outlook.net user
> "Hey guys, you sent me this attachment but my mail reader says it's been
> blocked and I should see the system administrator. What are you trying to
> do, get me in trouble!? Knock it off!!"
> This will be the way too common situation.
The all too common response to that response would be: "Well, it ran just
fine over here. Something must be wrong with your program." Do you think
the home user will call ISP or listen to his buddies who happen to have
things running. Which is easier? Afterall, the users buddies have things
working. :-) You guys just aren't practical man.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
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, 12 Nov 2000 21:46:25 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote...
> > Yes! The average user knows what will happen when he double clicks the
> > file or they certainly hope it will happen .... i.e.... that it will be
> > run. :-) You see, they don't know what's out there and what can be done
> > to their machines. If they did, you'd see how quickly they start learning
> > the necessary stuff to keep themselves protected.
>
> Or they would just replace their OS with one that worked right in
> the first place.
<vbg> Don't hold you breath on their choosing that solution. I certainly
won't be. It's not necessary. Just use a decent Windows based e-mail
client. OE is not all there is to Windows MUA's you know. :-)
If you wish to advocate the mighty UNIX, this is not the way. :-)
> > > But does the average user?
> >
> > No. Some of you argue as if anyone who uses Windows is at the mercy of
> > these attachments. My argument is that this is certainly not the case and
> > it's only those who choose to be ignorant and expect the computer to do
> > things for them safely and securely without their having to learn
> > anything that are the vulnerable ones.
>
> Pehaps you can get that paragraph inserted as a 'consumer warning label'
> on all Microsoft products.
Actually it probably wouldn't do any good. I say this to my siblings all
the time but they simply stare at me and then look away wondering if I'm
ill or something. I'm just a geek in their eyes. These are individuals
with quaternary educations. Among the few who have spent most of their
life learning. I don't think you realize the scope of the whole issue
here.
> > For every action there's a consequence. If ignorant users are using
> > computers today, to get things done without having to call anyone for
> > help often then default associations are necessary and these users are
> > vulnerable.
>
> However, it is not, and never was necessary to consider email
> attachments to be identical to files.
Why not? Why confuse the joe user with a new concept. Treat it as a file.
He already knows what a file is. :-)
> > But it helps ignorant users remain ignorant and as a result make them
> > vulnerable. The sad thing is that most of these users don't even have
> > insight into the implications behind their ignorance. Some may feel that
> > they're being exploited by MS. Weeeeellll, I wouldn't necessarily say so
> > because if the UNIX type approach was all there is, computers wouldn't be
> > so commonly used in the household setting. People would get frustrated
> > because they'd actually have to learn to have fun.
>
> They are being exploited by one of the many mistakes in the MS approach
> of hiding details. That doesn't necessarily mean you can't hide details,
> just that you can't hide the important ones like the difference in the
> content of email attachments from an untrusted source and your own
> files by pretending they don't exist.
I agree with this 1000%. We actually agree on something. :-) We just
don't agree on the solution. I see a very real dilemma which you don't. I
see a necessary evil, loss of security for simplicity that you don't. My
greatest disagreement is that of UNIX being the solution. Maybe Linux,
but not in its present state.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
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, 12 Nov 2000 21:46:31 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote...
[..]
> No, because the associations are system wide and are there for comfort and
> ease-of-use.
> The only *right* way to handle those things is to educate the user.
Amen to that. :-)
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
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, 12 Nov 2000 21:46:35 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote...
> > > As far as I can tell there isn't a 'right' association that correctly
> > > matches
> > > the differences between email attachments and files.
> >
> > No, because the associations are system wide and are there for comfort and
> > ease-of-use.
>
> No, grouping a set of similar things with default associations would
> provide comfort and ease-of-use. Including dissimilar things into
> the same defaults is a deception that causes confusion.
Remember that they aren't as hopelessly biased as you are so they wont
get confuse. :-)
> > The only *right* way to handle those things is to educate the user.
>
> But then they would insist on switching to a different OS. Are you sure you
> want to recommend that?
Oh definitely. In fact, if they're educated they'd wish to stay with
Windows. You see, if they needed to really use UNIX and Linux for the
reasons one would really need to use those OS's then they would be the
educators.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:48:11 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm a university-educated, systems engineer....and I don't perform
> much "regular maintenance" on any of the Unix boxes I administrate.
>
> Disk drives last 5 years...We do backups every night.
> If a power supply fails, the vendor will replace it in less than 120
minutes.
Great, I'm sure your bosses like 2 hours of system unavailability.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 02:49:42 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Compared to Windows 2000, Win9x is shit. But if I was forced to choose,
I'd
> still choose it (9x) over Linux though, even as a webserver.
> There's probably more choice in webservers under Win9x although I haven't
> verified that. One nice one is
> http://www.sambar.com
I don't think that is likely, but even so all you really need is apache and
an assortment of modules that suit your needs. When you can customize
one program easily you don't need a lot of others.
> > Not everyone is going to forget that - especially the people still
> > using them.
>
> After using Windows.Net no one will care how crash prone 9x was.
Why would anyone keep doing business with the people who brought
you that?
> There always has been competition, that's why the price's have remained
the
> same while Windows.* has been improving with each release. The next home
> version of Windows will put the competition to shame.
Yes, MS always has always been better than the competition at making
promises about their next versions.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:53:18 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:6fIP5.19732$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:NQFP5.125933$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > > The thing you are missing is that journaling does not mean you won't
> > > lose anything, it means that the operations are ordered so you can
> > > always recover to a consistent state. Journaling metadata means that
> > > the directory structure and free space tables are always consistent
> > > or at least recoverable even though any particular file's contents
> > > may not be correct. Journaling everything usually requires writing
> > > changes to a log, performing the real update, then clearing the log
> > > so that incomplete operations remain in the log and can be completed
> > > during recovery. Making this set of steps come close to the speed
> > > of non-journaled operations is non-trivial.
> >
> > Sounds like NTFS does it.
> >
> > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q101/6/70.ASP
>
> There is really not enough information in that article to tell whether
> the log is just metadata or not, and I doubt if the omissions were
> accidental.
It is exceptionally clear (and note this was NT 3.1 so it was in NT from the
beginning)
When a user updates a file, the Log File Service records all redo and undo
information for the transaction. For recoverability, redo information allows
NTFS to roll the transaction forward (repeat the transaction if necessary),
and undo allows NTFS to roll the transaction back if an error occurs.
If a transaction completes successfully, NTFS commits the file update to
disk. If the transaction is not complete, NTFS ends or rolls back the
transaction according to the undo information. If NTFS detects an error in
the transaction, it rolls back the transaction. If NTFS cannot guarantee
that a transaction completed successfully, it rolls the transaction back.
Incomplete modifications to the volume are not allowed.
If the system crashes (due to power failure or other cause), NTFS performs
three passes through the data on the disk: an analysis pass, a redo pass,
and an undo pass. During the analysis pass, NTFS appraises the damage, if
any, and determines which clusters it must update using the information in
the log file. The redo pass performs any steps logged from the last
checkpoint. Then the undo pass rolls back any incomplete (uncommitted)
transactions.
------------------------------
From: "Evan DiBiase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:55:05 +0500
In article <GoGP5.7837$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Multiuser has nothing to do with what the client is running. For
> instance, what if I telnet to a Unix server from a Mac or Windows box
> without an X server? Does that make Unix no longer multi-user because
> the client can't support a remote GUI?
It's still multi-user. I guess it seems, IME, that it's easier to work on
a UNIX machine in the CLI (telnet/ssh only) than on a Windows machine in
the CLI -- even though it appears NT has ways of doing many things using
the command line, they're simply not as common. I never even knew regedit
could be run in command-line mode (chalk it up to inexperience).
But the fact remains that it would appear that NT/2K is designed to run
mainly in GUI mode, while UNIX is designed to run in CLI mode.
-Evan
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 03:02:57 GMT
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Not quite. By default, when you telnet to a machine, DISPLAY will not be
> set. So an X app will fail to run. From the descriptions here, it
sounds
> like notepad will, by default, run and display on the main screen. I'd
rather
> have an app fail to start than to accidentally display on someone else's
> machine with all the potential security problems that represents.
>
> Gary
Unless your telnet negotiations propagate the DISPLAY setting for you
as current versions do. Then it just works transparently.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 03:05:26 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:19GP5.7831$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Similarly, what happens if you have DISPLAY set for a machine you are not
> logged into? Does your app pop up on someone elses computer if you
mistype
> the IP address and that IP happens to have an X server running?
Yes, but modern telnet logins propagate the DISPLAY setting transparently,
and DISPLAY on your end controls where you current window connects
as well.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 03:06:51 GMT
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:46:13 -0500, Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote:
>You have quite a bit to learn before you reach that stage. Waaaaay more
>than a novice needs to know to start getting their work done in Windows.
I'm sure Joe User would just love to hear this.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
