Linux-Advocacy Digest #898, Volume #30 Fri, 15 Dec 00 05:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED.... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Whistler review. (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Unuther UNIX sight doun! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED.... ("Donn Miller")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:54:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Name the THING you can do with Windows you
> CAN NOT do with Linux.
You mean "things" not thing.
1. I can't run my favourite GUI development tool on Linux, at least not yet.
2. I can't run my web-cam or scanner on Linux. For some reason it
switches off my USB hub which they're plugged into.
3. Sound doesn't work. There is a driver but KDE hangs if I try to start
it up.
4. Netscape 6 I haven't got on Linux as yet - it is available, but it
would appear I need to run Linux to download it. 17MBytes across a 56k
modem is a bit slow!
5. Browsing 1GByte of pictures is not a pleasant experience on Linux.
What can I do Linux:
1. I can read EMail
2. I can read News with KNode. Actually the best News reader I've seen
so far. Kudos to the KDE 2 team.
3. I can surf the web, although KDE's Konqueror is not that hot. I'm
trying out Opera and Netscape 4.7 but, it seems this is better with
Netscape 6 on Windows (yeah, I know, Netscape 6 is slower, buggy etc.)
4. I can access my file server now I'm running Linux on that as well,
and Samba seems to work very well now. Sounds like I hit the right
configuration and even Windows can use it.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:05:15 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> 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.
>
1. The BSOD.
2. The General Protection Fault.
3. Those silly little "call customer support" compiler errors that go away
the next time you compile.
Actually, Component Object Model technology is rather clever. Did someone
there come up with that? I'm not sure...
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:09:36 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You can hardly use Star Office and Sun as an indication of the end of Open
>> Source.
> It isn't the only indicator just a good example of the trend that is
> building.
Yeah. Just like Sun bought StarOffice from the guys in Germany (who
were selling it as a commercial, closed source application) and
released it source and all, many others are doing similar things.
SGI, for instance, are porting and relasing large parts of their --
previously closed -- source code, and we get XFS, GLX and a bunch of
other very cool technology.
>From IBM, we have the S/390 port, which lets both a major bank and a
major ISP run hundreds of servers in a box at a fraction of the price
for anything comparable.
Previously closed, proprietary and costly products owned by companies
who really want to be hardware manufacturers are released en masse to
the public.
Yes, you can definitely call it a trend.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:09:45 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> A printer driver can crash a Windows box?
> Actually No.
And conclusive proof of that resides...where? Only in your vivid and
deranged imagination? Thought so.
>>>> Of course, at the moment, I can't get it to connect to any of our
>>>> printers
>>> So you admit that you're incompetent then? What room, then, do you
>>> have to criticize anything?
>> You have to admit that this is broken.
> Admit what the idiot is lying.
Well, I must assume the "idiot" you refer to is me. So everybody who
suffers an NT blue screen must be liar, is that it? I know that your
aptitude at rational arguments is on par with your orthography, but
surely you can do better than turn to blind, fanatic disbelief and
personal insults after only a couple of postings?
I find it amusing that *you* accuse me of lacking mental faculties.
Have a nice day,
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:10:09 GMT
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Swangoremovemee wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 05:35:11 GMT, kiwiunixman
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> You have missed the point completely. Windows 98SE is compiled and
> >> optimized to work with the lowest grade processor possible (486),
hence,
> >> the very poor speed improvement once the processor is upgraded (say
from
> >> a PII to PIII). Compare that to Linux, where, if I have the latest
> >> processor, and Linux can recognise it, you have the ability to optimize
> >> the kernel to utilize the processor to its compacity.
> >
> >
> > Now if it only supported USB hardware properly like Windows and Mac.
> > If it only had a decent non pre-alpha web browser.
> Can't win that battle, so you go back to the USB whine feast, very
> mature, esp for a socalled "computer expert" with 25 years experience.
Possibly Read: 25 years data entry experience.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> If you RTFM that is included with your distro (like the huge one
> >> included with SuSE Linux), unless you are a complete moron, anyone
> >> should be able to compile a kernel.
> >
> >
> >
> > You haven't tried to compile a kernel under Redhat 7 yet have you?
> >
> > Try following the How-To and see if it works.
> You use Redhat! you must be a complete moron. Fuck, I wouldn't touch
> Redhat with a 40M pole. Why didn't you buy a copy of SuSE Linux 7? or
> are you one of those people who only buy "American Made" software (aka
> xenaphobic software buyer)? Your so dumb you probably don't even know
> what SAP is!
No, the American-Made (tm) OS is Windows...
And, no, we're not overly proud of this.
Sap is that stuff that comes out of trees, right?
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:12:46 GMT
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <snype>
>
>
> > ie: So how many people do YOU know running StarOffice? I'll even let
> > you include the Windows version in your tally.
> I use StarOffice for Linux on regular basis, and what the fuck is wrong
> with it? nothing. Compare that to Microsoft's mega-mega-mega-mega-mega
> bloated office suite that provides millions of features, but the average
> joe/jane business/home user, if lucky, use 0.01% of the features. 200MB
> vs. Microsofts mega-mega-mega-mega-mega bloated pro version taking up
> 760MB (on a Win 98 Machine). I know which one I'd pick, and it an't
> MSOffice.
The only complaint I have with StarOffice is the amount of time it takes to
load. Once its' up though, its' great.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:15:43 GMT
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Swangoremovemee wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:58:00 +1300, kiwiunixman
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I try to be optimistic, however, the dickhead swango who can't even
> >> config, his computer puts real doubts about humanities ability to RTFM!
> >
> >
> > They can't even read an election ballot and you are expecting them to
> > run Linux?
> >
> True, in my local paper (Evening Post), they had a picture of the ballot
> paper (that caused the problems), the fucking arrows say it all, if ya
> can't follow that, then you must real problems. As a serious question,
> down in that county, are they just a bunch of six toed inbreeds, because
> that is the only reason I can find for such as pack of dicks making such
> a stupid mistake.
Blame an education system that shields kids from anything stronger than
algebra until high school.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:24:43 GMT
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <snype>
>
> I have used Windows 2000, and when the setup say's it need's to reboot,
> I reboot (just in case). There are software packages that don't need a
> system reboot, however, try to uninstall these packages, and they need a
> reboot. Why isn't their a solution. I can install and uninstall
> StarOffice with out any need to reboot under Linux, compare that to
> installing Office 2000 under Windows 98! what a reboot-a-thon.
Try installing MSDN, Visual Studio 6 AND Microsoft Office in one
evening...THAT is a reboot-a-thon!
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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 09:37:14 GMT
"Ilja Booij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Jeffersonian liberalism is about freeing the individual.
> > >
> > > Modern (left-wing) "liberalism" is all about enslavement.
> > >
> > > Thus, their very self-designated monicker IS Newspeak.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Man, you are one crazy cat!
> >
> > And that last clause goes for you, too.
> >
> > I think I'll just call myself a freethinker. Too many
> > people have projected their own delusions onto the
> > word "liberal".
> >
> > Chris
>
> May I just add that in my country, the liberals are right-wingers
> (conservative, moneyspeaking types, hmm, sounds somewhat bad, but
> let's say mostly more conservative)
> isn't what you guys call liberalism something more towards socialism?
That's it, precisely.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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 09:39:19 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:918t6h$qhq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Yes...the term liberal (root: liber = freedom) has been absconded
> : with by the freedom-hating socialists.
>
> Then why help then mis-use it? Stop calling them liberals then.
They get mad when you call them Socialists because it sounds un-American.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.misc,alt.christnet,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unuther UNIX sight doun!
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:30:27 +0200
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:m6f_5.237$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:38:20 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > ("Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Matthew S. Staben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> On 13 Dec 2000 21:27:34 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SPAMMED
> > >> :
> > >>
> > >> >ALL OF EFNET IS DOUN AS WE SPEEK! EFNET COOD HAVE RAN WINDOS BUT
> > >NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAY HALF TO BE STOOPIT AND RUN UNIX BECAUSE THAY
THINK IT
> > >MORE STABAL1 BUT ITS NOT AND PROOVE IS THAT ITS ALL DOUN RITE NOW.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> So what if EFNET is down? It's a good thing to see a bunch of queers
> > >> hanging out in a world of words and emoticons, banished from their
> > >> queer-to-queer closets.
> > >
> > >Is this a new protocol? QTQCP? Queer-to-queer closet protocol?
> > >
> > >What port does that run on?
> >
> > Port "o".
> >
> >
> > (Note: that is a joke. It is funny. You must laugh.)
>
> A company in San Francisco bought the rights for DOS from Microsoft
> last week. Apparently they prefer it there because they just can't
> get enough of typing
> "C colon ENTER"
What do you mean bought the rights to DOS? You mean the source code and
right to distribue it?
Why on earth would they want it?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:32:00 +0200
"James E. LaBarre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> From my experience, I've had far less trouble setting up recent Linux
> distros on machines like a Thinkpad 770, than setting up Win98 (even
> 98Lite) on the very same machines. Thankfully I know lots of ways of
> hacking Windows installs, otherwise the Win98 machines would never work
> right at all. And it isn't because I was removing IE in the install,
> because a "normal" W98 install is just as troublesome.
>
> Win2000 is surprisingly easier to install, but there is no "2000Lite"
> utility, so I'm stuck with a system with tons of "shell bloat". On my
> Linux side, even though I use X for most things, I can run XFce, and
> have a much smaller shell.
I think you can use 98Lite on 2000, but I'm not quite sure what the affects
would be.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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 11:36:05 +0200
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:whg_5.21869$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "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.
Actaully, I think that it is reasonably safe when you are installing over
NTFS, user can't write to system dirs or HKLM, he can do very little to the
machine.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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 11:37:33 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
The default install on Win2k is perfectly safe from users corrupting the
system.
Users (Not admins, *users*) can't touch the system folders, therefor they
can't change them.
If you think that it is possible.
Prove it, show me how I can write to system dirs without having admin/power
user privileges.
------------------------------
From: "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:52:34 -0500
"Black Dragon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:48:38 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Charlie Ebert' said:
> : Seems like people are having trouble naming ONE THING
> : Microsoft invented.
> The dancing Paper Clip?
How about Petey the Parrot?
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
