Linux-Advocacy Digest #892, Volume #30 Thu, 14 Dec 00 23:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (OT) (humor) (Marty)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Corel to pull out of Linux (spicerun)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Whistler review. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Another UNIX sight is doun! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Corel to pull out of Linux (kiwiunixman)
Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED.... (kiwiunixman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 03:32:44 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91boci$7ri$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:r3d_5.21690$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:919k7i$f2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:2QVZ5.13988$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:38:14 +0200,
> > > > > Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:09:47 +0200,
> > > > > >> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >> >> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:00:50 -0500,
> > > > > >> >> Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> Do check again, anyone with root privileges and not
enough
> > > > knowledge
> > > > > >> >can
> > > > > >> >> >> crush a *nix, or any other OS, for that matter.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >Going willy-nilly in root is a far cry from Win2K hosing
> itself
> > > > when
> > > > > >you
> > > > > >> >> >install a wrong application.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >"747's are reliable, so long as you don't take off the
wings"
> > and
> > > > > >> >> >"windows is reliable so long as you don't install 'bad'
> > > > applications
> > > > > >and
> > > > > >> >> >'know' what you are doing" are NOT equivant statements.
(and
> if
> > > > > >> >> >something does go wrong it is obviously YOUR FAULT) Read
my
> > > > ORIGIONAL
> > > > > >> >> >post in this light and it point should be more clear.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> <snipage>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> This is typical of the Windows mentality.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> The definition of an operating system includes the ability
> > > > > >> >> to adequately recover from application failure. In short,
> > > > > >> >> this means you shouldn't be able to write a program bad
> > > > > >> >> enough to make an operating system go down. Thus, Windows
> > > > > >> >> is not an operating system.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >Show me the OS that can't be taken down by an applicaiton
having
> > > root
> > > > > >> >privileges.
> > > > > >> >This is what we are talking about.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> It has no recovery, no protection, it's purely a large
> > > > > >> >> application in itself.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >I still have to run into an application that will crush Win2K.
> > > > > >> >Application do crush, and sometimes (rarely, btw) it's bad
> enough
> > > that
> > > > > >I've
> > > > > >> >to log off & on to recover from the crush, but that is about
it.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> At least *nix has a root. What is Windows excuse.
> > > > > >> Anybody, any common user can take down their system.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >We are talking about Win2K systems here, if you want to talk
about
> > the
> > > > Win9x
> > > > > >problems, I'll be more than happy to join the conversation.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Then why do you keep refering to NT all the time.
> > > > > And your statement is incorrect, see below.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> This is the point. And it's a point which is totally
> > > > > >> un-arguable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Win2K/NT/Whistler protect the system from users unless they are
> > running
> > > > as
> > > > > >administrators.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not true, see below.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> True, You CAN cripple a *nix to emulate the same thing.
> > > > > >> You can also pretend your dick is a pogo stick and go
> > > > > >> bouncing down the sidewalk for all I care.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> But Windows has no protection from this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Actually, WinME tries to protect the user without going to true
> multi
> > > > user
> > > > > >enviroment, it does this by basically reducing the user to
non-root
> > > > level,
> > > > > >with no way to access root level privileges short of hacking its
> own
> > > > system.
> > > > > >It's one of the main complaints that I've against WinME.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >The NT line offer this protection, and this is the one that we
are
> > > > talking
> > > > > >about here.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong again buddy.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can log into any W2K box as a common user, write a program
> > > > > which can corrupt the Win/system directories, run the program,
> > > > > and cripple the system. Why? Because they have no sense
> > > > > of program ownership for software YOU write.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wrong answer, on a properly configured system with rather simple
> > > protections
> > > > set, a user written program will not have access to those
directories
> or
> > > > even the registry.
> > >
> > > This is incorrect, actually, the program would've the user's rights,
> > > therefor, assuming default configurations, the program could read HKLM
&
> > > System dirs, but wouldn't be able to write to them.
> > > They have access, but not write/modify/delete access, which you need
in
> > > order to cripple the system.
> > >
> >
> > A user can be denied read access to critical areas of the registry if
> > desired.
>
> Of course, but that is not the default install, hwich is what we are
talking
> about here.
> Since Charlie claim that he can write a program that can corrupt NT sys
> files as user, I'm sticking to defaults here, in showing him how it is
> impossible to do so.
That is exactly what I was referring to. I wasn't sticking to defaults here,
neither system is safe when defaults are used.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 03:16:28 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:36:45 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > Laughable in the extreme ! Was it the liberals or the conservatives who
> > > were pro-segregation ? Was it the liberals or conservatives who lead
> > > the anti-communist witch-hunts of the 50s ?
> > > .......
> > >
> > > Liberal implies moderate.
> >
> > Wrong. Liberal implies bending and stretching the rule of law and the
> > foundations of this country (as seen recently in Al Gore's Election
Debacle).
> >
> > Moderate implies moderate. Liberal implies eco-wacko, red commie (Jane
> > Fonda, et al), baby killer (Barbara Boxer who believes that a baby isn't
> > the Mother's until she's released from the hospital and a slipped-up
> > partial-birth abortion in which the baby is fully delivered and then
> > killed after birth is still legal), etc.
>
> Donovan, don't try arguing with this guy. He's quite crazy.
> It is common in schizophrenia to apply meanings to words that are
> quite outside the accepted norm.
Chris has yet to address even one single provable fact I have put
before him. He seeks only to demonize, devide, and attack as
demonstrated here.
Chris, why won't you debate on facts and merits? What do you fear?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 03:33:32 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 02:21:10 +0200,
> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:r3d_5.21690$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:919k7i$f2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:2QVZ5.13988$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > >
> >> > > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:38:14 +0200,
> >> > > > Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > > >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:09:47 +0200,
> >> > > > >> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > > >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > > >> >> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:00:50 -0500,
> >> > > > >> >> Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >> >Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> Do check again, anyone with root privileges and not
enough
> >> > > knowledge
> >> > > > >> >can
> >> > > > >> >> >> crush a *nix, or any other OS, for that matter.
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >Going willy-nilly in root is a far cry from Win2K hosing
> >itself
> >> > > when
> >> > > > >you
> >> > > > >> >> >install a wrong application.
> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >"747's are reliable, so long as you don't take off the
wings"
> >> and
> >> > > > >> >> >"windows is reliable so long as you don't install 'bad'
> >> > > applications
> >> > > > >and
> >> > > > >> >> >'know' what you are doing" are NOT equivant statements.
(and
> >if
> >> > > > >> >> >something does go wrong it is obviously YOUR FAULT) Read
my
> >> > > ORIGIONAL
> >> > > > >> >> >post in this light and it point should be more clear.
> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> <snipage>
> >> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> This is typical of the Windows mentality.
> >> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> The definition of an operating system includes the ability
> >> > > > >> >> to adequately recover from application failure. In short,
> >> > > > >> >> this means you shouldn't be able to write a program bad
> >> > > > >> >> enough to make an operating system go down. Thus, Windows
> >> > > > >> >> is not an operating system.
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >Show me the OS that can't be taken down by an applicaiton
having
> >> > root
> >> > > > >> >privileges.
> >> > > > >> >This is what we are talking about.
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >> It has no recovery, no protection, it's purely a large
> >> > > > >> >> application in itself.
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >I still have to run into an application that will crush
Win2K.
> >> > > > >> >Application do crush, and sometimes (rarely, btw) it's bad
> >enough
> >> > that
> >> > > > >I've
> >> > > > >> >to log off & on to recover from the crush, but that is about
it.
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> At least *nix has a root. What is Windows excuse.
> >> > > > >> Anybody, any common user can take down their system.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >We are talking about Win2K systems here, if you want to talk
about
> >> the
> >> > > Win9x
> >> > > > >problems, I'll be more than happy to join the conversation.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Then why do you keep refering to NT all the time.
> >> > > > And your statement is incorrect, see below.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >> This is the point. And it's a point which is totally
> >> > > > >> un-arguable.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >Win2K/NT/Whistler protect the system from users unless they are
> >> running
> >> > > as
> >> > > > >administrators.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Not true, see below.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >> True, You CAN cripple a *nix to emulate the same thing.
> >> > > > >> You can also pretend your dick is a pogo stick and go
> >> > > > >> bouncing down the sidewalk for all I care.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> But Windows has no protection from this.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >Actually, WinME tries to protect the user without going to true
> >multi
> >> > > user
> >> > > > >enviroment, it does this by basically reducing the user to
non-root
> >> > > level,
> >> > > > >with no way to access root level privileges short of hacking its
> >own
> >> > > system.
> >> > > > >It's one of the main complaints that I've against WinME.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >The NT line offer this protection, and this is the one that we
are
> >> > > talking
> >> > > > >about here.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Wrong again buddy.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I can log into any W2K box as a common user, write a program
> >> > > > which can corrupt the Win/system directories, run the program,
> >> > > > and cripple the system. Why? Because they have no sense
> >> > > > of program ownership for software YOU write.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Wrong answer, on a properly configured system with rather simple
> >> > protections
> >> > > set, a user written program will not have access to those
directories
> >or
> >> > > even the registry.
> >> >
> >> > This is incorrect, actually, the program would've the user's rights,
> >> > therefor, assuming default configurations, the program could read
HKLM &
> >> > System dirs, but wouldn't be able to write to them.
> >> > They have access, but not write/modify/delete access, which you need
in
> >> > order to cripple the system.
> >> >
> >>
> >> A user can be denied read access to critical areas of the registry if
> >> desired.
> >
> >Of course, but that is not the default install, hwich is what we are
talking
> >about here.
> >Since Charlie claim that he can write a program that can corrupt NT sys
> >files as user, I'm sticking to defaults here, in showing him how it is
> >impossible to do so.
> >
> >
>
>
> A famous Chineese actor of the 20th century once said on
> one of his many movies, "Man who not listen to Charlie is Dumbass".
>
Don't listen to yourself much, eh?
> Charlie
>
------------------------------
From: Marty <[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! (OT) (humor)
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 03:30:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> David Ogg writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Wow, you three should get a room!
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Counting problems?
>
> >>>>>>>>> See what I mean about his illogic?
>
> >>>>>>>> What alleged illogic, Marty?
>
> >>>>>>> Are you suggesting that a counting problem is an attribute indicative
> >>>>>>> of being logical?
>
> >>>>>> I wasn't suggesting anything, Marty; I was asking a question.
>
> >>>>> Then why use the word "alleged"?
>
> >>>> Because you alleged illogic on my part, Marty.
>
> >>> I see that you are having more reading comprehension problems.
>
> >> How ironic.
>
> > Ah, so you also see your reading comprehension problem?
>
> I see yours, Marty, which is why it's ironic.
Having vision problems?
> > Progress!
>
> Incorrect, Marty, considering your latest miscomprehension.
You are correct that I spoke too soon, but for the wrong reason. Perhaps that
is progress from your usual standards of being incorrect for the wrong reason.
> >>> Why would I respond to you and refer to you in the third person?
>
> >> Why would you claim that the subject in another thread was not one-liners
> >> when it clearly was, Marty?
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Your erroneous claim was more illogical than non sequitur, Marty.
You're erroneously presupposing an erroneous claim on my part, Dave.
> >> Your odd behavior isn't always explainable.
>
> > You're erroneously presupposing "odd behavior" on my part.
>
> Incorrect, given that you have admitted to playing an "infantile
> game", Marty.
Are you suggesting that infants are "odd" by their very nature?
> > Meanwhile, you've failed to answer the question. Figures.
>
> Meanwhile, you still haven't admitted to what the subject really
> was. Figures.
On the contrary, I have readily admitted that the subject was about 50 usages
of "Still find it entertaining Sandman?". Figures that you would ignore this
fact.
> >>>> I see that you still haven't substantiated your claim.
>
> >>> I haven't made such a claim in this discussion.
>
> >> MA] See what I mean about his illogic?
>
> > "His" does not refer to you, as context clearly shows.
>
> On what basis do you call your context clear, Marty?
On the basis that it is easily discernable to those with adequate reading
comprehension skills.
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 03:35:20 GMT
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Sun et al. are siphoning off resources without paying for them, then
> > reselling the results, eventually even you twits will get tired of
working
> > for free and quit.
> >
>
> You can hardly use Star Office and Sun as an indication of the end of Open
> Source. Like I said before, IBM has given a lot back to the Open Source
> community. These "chicken little" predictions of the death of Open Source
are
> getting quite boring.
>
It isn't the only indicator just a good example of the trend that is
building.
You can head | sand all you want but faith ain't gonna help.
> Gary
>
>
------------------------------
From: spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel to pull out of Linux
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:37:45 -0600
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> I thought I would post this first as nobody else seemed
> to be interested, not even the Wintrolls.
>
> It's of no surprise to me that as soon as Microsoft
> bought up all the Corel stock, Corel cancell's it's
> plans to continue on with it's Debian based
> Corel Office packages for Linux.
Be very glad that they are selling off their Linux division instead of
putting out products designed to give whoever buys it a bad taste in the
mouth for Linux <Something that Corel was doing on their own anyhow>.
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 03:37:37 GMT
"Pan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> > > www.openoffice.org, again.
> >
> > Where's the production releases?
>
> Who said that anything has been moved into production only 3 months into
> the project? Try the 609 or 605 build.
>
That is real clear, for an end user. Sheesh.
> > > > I don't care about Wildebeest licensing I was
> > > > looking for allegedly free software and found it owned by one of the
> > biggest
> > > > whores in the industry.
> > >
> > > When was the last time M$ released a product under the gpl?
> > >
> >
> > Again, who cares.
>
> You do, apparently. Calling Sun an industry "whore" and taking issue
> with "allegedly" free software. Did you have to pay for S.O. 5.1? If
> not, then it is free. Did they release the source code? Yes. Then
> that is free also. Nothing "alleged" about S.O. being free.
>
Except for the constant spam I receive since I signed up for it. The
license agreement that I was forced to agree to seems to disagree about the
'Free' aspect.
> > I don't give my product away and I see no benefit in
> > doing so. You want to run my applications, pay for them.
>
> What applications have you built? Links?
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 03:38:33 GMT
"Pan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Pan wrote:
> >
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >
> > > > www.openoffice.org, again.
> > >
> > > Where's the production releases?
> >
> > Who said that anything has been moved into production only 3 months into
> > the project? Try the 609 or 605 build.
>
> ... make that 2 months into the project.
>
Then why aren't they making it available as a release, the only certified
release I found was over a year old.
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 03:52:31 GMT
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 03:32:44 GMT,
Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Of course, but that is not the default install, hwich is what we are
>talking
>> about here.
>> Since Charlie claim that he can write a program that can corrupt NT sys
>> files as user, I'm sticking to defaults here, in showing him how it is
>> impossible to do so.
>
>That is exactly what I was referring to. I wasn't sticking to defaults here,
>neither system is safe when defaults are used.
>
You guys could at least WAIT for the next virus to strike
before I prove to the readership that your both full of shit.
Please don't just GIVE IN YET.
Christ!
Stick to your guns and wait for me to make a fool of your
comments. Don't just voluntarily admit your wrong before
we have proof your wrong.
I believe if you make a statement such as the one's I've read
on this threat, you should stick to your guns until your dead.
Don't get everyboyd pissed off and thinking your an asshole
then just give it to them on a silver platter that you were
assholes.
Geeze.
Charlie
Strength in debating.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 03:55:49 GMT
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 03:33:32 GMT,
Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> A famous Chineese actor of the 20th century once said on
>> one of his many movies, "Man who not listen to Charlie is Dumbass".
>>
>
>Don't listen to yourself much, eh?
>
Since you've already admitted to everyboyd you were full of
shit, I think it speaks well.
The default install doesn't protect anything Chad.
And I appreciate you comming clean with everybody
and clarifying that to us all.
This is why Linux is more secure. The distributions
are built by people who actually give a shit about you.
There is NO default Windows install which is safe.
And given time, I will prove to everyboyd there is
no administered copy of W2k which is safe either.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Another UNIX sight is doun!
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:56:47 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I'm not having any problem with it. Maybe it's your inferior
> proprietary browser that's screwed up. And if you websurf like you
> spell, then you probably spend all day in front of a blank screen.
>From blank minds come blank products.
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel to pull out of Linux
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:00:32 GMT
Used the Corel Linux Deluxe, and it is not a very good distro (in terms
of fexibility). I am going to (next year) get a Mac with MacOS X. On
the Wintel front I am eager to look at what Microsoft will spit out of
their think-tank by the third quarter (approx. of Whistler), and see if
all the hype equals Whistlers substance. Corel, personally, makes a
superior Office Suite than Microsoft, esp. in the area of designing
highly graphical documents. However, even if Whistler is what it is
cracked up to be, I am still not purchasing for the mear fact that it
will be (like all their products), expensive (features vs. price).
<snype>
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:01:34 GMT
Just out of curiousity, what games do you play?
kiwiunixman
Ken Klavonic wrote:
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
>> Here's another interesting - unsolvable thread.
>>
>> Name the THING you can do with Windows you
>> CAN NOT do with Linux.
>>
>> Charlie
>
>
> The only thing I use Windows at home for (work is, sadly, another story)
> is to play games. I like Linux and all, but there are still lots of
> games that simply aren't available on LX..
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:07:11 +1300
The whole "98", "2000", naming of software. Thank god Corel didn't call
their latest Corel Draw, "Corel Draw 2000".
kiwiunixman
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Seems like people are having trouble naming ONE THING
> Microsoft invented.
>
> So I'll try it again on it's OWN THREAD.
>
> Name one thing, just one thing Microsoft actually
> invented.
>
> You don't even have to give me a LINK to prove it.
>
> Charlie
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
