Linux-Advocacy Digest #923, Volume #30 Sat, 16 Dec 00 01:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Chad C. Mulligan")
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: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. (Alan Baker)
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 03:57:14 GMT
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It's just that instead of accomidating for the changes in modern day
> > computing,
>
> Translation: instead of violating good design principle in favor of
> marketing buzz words, Linux choose GOOD over "IT SELLS"!
Linux doesn't have the 'good' value anymore. Just saying "it's more stable"
isn't working (and RedHat software's stock will attest to that.) Without
that "it's more stable"; Linux just seems to exist as the worlds largest,
administrative headache.
> > Linux has kept it's 30 year old mantra that "just stack something
> > above me"
>
> This is called: A component based architechture. It's a hot new idea,
> and all the rage (never mind the fact that it was invented in the
> sixties).
Exactly, it was invented in the 60's, instituted in the 70's, and abandoned
in the 90's. Why? Because the OS is a whole component, it's programs are
another component. Blending the two togather is an unnessecary, complicated
and dumb idea when we no longer have to resolve issues as "terminal
compatibility" and "technological propriotorization".
> > (in this case, the UI) actually works.
>
> No, it doesn't work . . . which is why all the really new and innovative
> UI research is being done on Unix workstations . . . the UI can be
> modified without having to modify the entire OS.
When that research yeilds something as pretty AND functional as Apple's new
AQUA X-Window'er and DM, call me.
> Solaris does not integrate the UI into the OS. Solaris, like all good
> Unix-like OS'en, is component based.
Yes, but solaris found how to make the UI be not only intuitave, but
FUNCTIONAL. While also adding utilities that were intuitave, AND
FUNCTIONAL.
> As for Windows and MacOS . . . well, their crash and burn record simply
> illustrates why this kind of "integration" is such a bad idea.
Windows NT after service pack 4 was perfectly stable, and has been succeeded
by Windows 2000. MacOS 9 uses a fully 32-bit memory management system
preventing such problems as "cascade crashing" which was always MacOS's
problem in the past. Another example of Linux "clutching to the past".
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 04:05:22 GMT
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The USB layer under Linux doesn't support full soft-enumeration of the
> > devices under the BUS in perputiaty. WHICH IS THE POINT OF USB!
>
> What the heck are you trying to say?!
TRANSLATION: You plug it in, and poof, it works, PERIOD.
> > You plug in a USB device, great. Can Linux identify it, yes. Can it
> > support it? No. Can it support it through a simple, modular HID layer
> > change? NO. Can it support it without recompiling the kernel?
Probably
> > not.
>
> Wrong on all counts.
How? Linux CAN read the ID data sent to it by the USB device. Great. It
searches it's assinine /dev/usb directory for accomidating "modules", which
more often then not results in FAILURE if the damn thing isn't a mouse, or a
keyboard. Linux's excuse for an "HID Layer" doesn't support ANY USB
interface device in the "plug and play" fashion. When you remove a USB
mouse, is the USB mouse module removed from memory? NO. If a USB mouse is
added AFTER booting the system, are the modules loaded? NO. Does the
XFree86 (the defacto, and near exclusive XWindowing system for Linux) load,
reload or accomidate for a new mouse addition automaticly? NO!
Can any of the afformentioned be cured without recompiling the kernel?
Probably Not.
I didn't think my previous statement was that cryptic.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 04:10:37 GMT
"Driver" is a concept that allows dynamic kernel accomidation to load,
reload and remove code to interface with devices (device-->kernel) without
adjusting a critical, core component to the kernel (such as the version
loaded by LILO & GRUB). You can't put a CD in to a linux system, copy the
"driver" from the "/linux" directory into your modules directory, and say
"insmod/modprobe <NEW DRIVER>." You have to build the driver from the
source provided IN YOUR KERNEL. And this alone adds half an hour to adding
something as insignifigant as a new keyboard.
Linux does not use such technology. It has "Modules". Core components that
can be loaded to, but not removed from, or changed dynamicly. The module
can be loaded, fine. UNLOAD it. Can you? Maybe. It may be a critical
interface module, so forget it. Update it. Can you? No. Didn't get the
"module" needed from the install of your Linux? Can you download THE
MODULE? Maybe, can you use it instantly? NO.
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91eek9$htc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Linux uses modules, which are part of the kernel, which is THE OPERATING
> : PLATFORM. The Linux OS structure does not work well with the idea of
> : "drivers" or "3rd party modules". You can't simply download & install
a
> : DRIVER in Linux, you have to accomidate for the new MODULE.
>
> Explain the difference between a 'DRIVER' and a 'MODULE' that does
> driver functions. Good luck.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 04:34:11 GMT
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:12:37 -0500, Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> "Packard Smell"? Do you have any idea what a moron you sound like when
>you
>> use the taunting style of a 4 year old?
>>
>
>Hmmm...... just maybe I've struck a nerve there?
>
Yup. Loud obnoxious morons annoy me. You reminded me of them.
>Anyway, I have worked on many of these machines, and I can tell you that the
>term "Packard Smell" is not 4-year-old taunting, but a perfectly descriptive
>technical term for these pieces -o-feces.
bullshit. They smell the same as any other PC, especially when they're broken
down requiring a motherboard replacement that'll cost $500 instead of $40 for a
non-proprietary PC.
>
>And no matter how much of a moron I may sound like, I would sound like MUCH
>more of a moron if I had actually purchased one.
agreed.
--
Remove 'wakawaka' and 'invalid' to e-mail me. You can thank spammers for this
inconvenience.
I didn't do it! Nobody saw anything! You can't prove anything! -- bart
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 04:56:23 GMT
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >
> > Curtis has posted it. BTW keyword Titanic in your search or Stephen
Edward,
> > Matt (sfcybear) or my name would also probably yield results.
> >
> > > -- Bob Day
>
> And, from Deja:
>
> On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:06:41 -0700, Matt Templeton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> [snip]
>
> It seems that Matt *still* hasn't cottoned onto a few basic "features"
> of that entire debate:
>
> 1. Neither Stephen nor myself _ever_ questioned the fact that Linux
> made a significant
> contribution to the creation of Titanic.
True, but then facts don't matter much to Matt.
> 2. The DD article proves our point. The question was not _how_
> useful but merely the fact
> that it was useful _at all_.
>
> In summary, both NT and Linux were used to create Titanic.
>
Yeah.
> It seems the story has been well twisted by both sides . . . they did
> not have to "augment" the render farm with NT because of any intrinsic
> failing in Linux, or because Linux was not "up to the task", but simply
> because there was so much work to be done that using every processor
> helped.
>
Well IIRC the article did say the rendering was falling behind schedule and
they reconfigured some NT workstations that were no longer needed to help
out.
> --
>
> If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
> John Stevens
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:00:12 GMT
"Pan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >
> > Then why aren't they making it available as a release,
>
> I imagine that they aren't walking it through alpha just for the heck of
> it. As to what else sun has been up to with this code, see starportal
> for details.
>
> > the only certified
> > release I found was over a year old.
>
> Open Office has existed for 2 months. Are you suggesting that they
> should've just gone straight to production release? No time to build a
> team? No analysis? No design? No time to get the teams familiar with
> the code? No alpha period? No beta period? Just take 9 million lines
> of code, compile it and slap it into a shrink-wrapped package and call
> it ready for market? That's simply a foolish expectation.
>
So all the work Star Division did was just thrown in the trash?
> But this is all irrelevent to your original point. You said that there
> was "no new development since its appropriation by Sun over a year
> ago". Clearly you were mistaken.
>
There isn't any progress or there would be a new certified release. This
is just like Mozilla being on the verge of beta release for more than two
years now. To coin a phrase "Where's the beef?"
> --
> [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: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:01:58 GMT
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Where is this trend? You only provided one example and it was wrong.
Star
> Office was not open source until after Sun bought it. Now it is open
source
> and you can download a copy - no need for any registration like you claim.
> Here, I'll make it easy for you. Click on this link:
>
Trends follow trends. Mozilla, Star Office, Kernel 2.4....... See the
pattern.
>
http://a1376.g.akamai.net/7/1376/2064/OpenOffice613/anoncvs.openoffice.org/d
ownload/OpenOffice613/oo_613_src.tar.gz
>
No thanks I got the Win32 version.
> Gary
>
>
------------------------------
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: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:02:59 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Y8m_5.1369$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:91a8rt$9tk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:a3ZZ5.16358$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It suprises me that all you OSS and GPL developers (the
distinction
> is
> > > > > really lost on me) really like the fact that you are making large
> > > > > corporations tons of money on the cuff. IBM, Sun, Corel et. al.
> must
> > be
> > > > > laughing all the way to the bank. Will you please explain why you
> > wish
> > > to
> > > > > give away the sweat of your brow?
> > > >
> > > > Well, these corporations are also giving a lot back to the open
> source
> > > > community. IBM has open sourced AFS and JFS, for example.
> > > >
> > > > Gary
> > >
> > > But didn't Sun promise worlds of support to the Linux community.
Cross
> > > platform Apps IIRC. They made Solaris run Linux stuff but aren't you
> > still
> > > waiting for the Solaris packages for Linux?
> >
> > Here is a thought, when Linux would be able to run Solaris applications,
> you
> > can get IE to Linux.
>
> Ummmm, i'd rather take my chances with Mozilla :)
>
You'll be waiting just as long..... ;^P
>
> --
> Tom Wilson
> Registered Linux User #194021
> http://counter.li.org
>
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
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: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:08:37 GMT
"Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "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.
>
Printer drivers run in user space therefore cannot crash a system, that and
7 years experience with the operating system an never getting a blue screen
from the system caused by a printer driver.
> >>>> 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?
>
If the shoe fits.
> 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: "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: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:09:56 GMT
"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 true and I've never said otherwise.
> This is why Linux is more secure. The distributions
> are built by people who actually give a shit about you.
>
Wrong. because a default installation of Linux leaves the system just as
wide open.
> 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.
>
Wrong.
> Charlie
>
------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:18:02 GMT
In article <Yyy_5.1432$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Quantum
Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Alan Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <wNZZ5.18415$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Quantum
>> Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >"Alan Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <PRVZ5.14004$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad C.
>> >> Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:45:08 -0500,
>> >> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
>> >> ><trimmed>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Windows doesn't have this capability. They never have and they
>> >> >> >> never will. They are slowly going the UNIX way, but they don't
>> >> >> >> have this capability yet.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >.....being dragged, kicking and screaming....all the way...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And spell checked.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, Let's just say that Microsoft has no VISION!
>> >> >> They stole Windows from apple.
>> >> >
>> >> >Actually Apple stole it from Xerox.
>> >>
>> >> Four things:
>> >>
>> >> Apple was already working on these ideas and visiting Xerox was merely
>> >> the spark that turned higher management on to the concept.
>> >>
>> >Amazing, considing Xerox got the idea from Doug Englebart when he as at
>> >SRI
>> >in the late 60s. So even Xerox didn't invent the idea of GUI.
>> >Xerox 'stole' the idea from Doug
>> >Apple paid 6 million, which isn't much considering it was in stock
>> >options,
>> >for the GUI from Xerox
>> >MS got the idea from Apple.
>> >
>> >So everyone stole the idea from Doug, since he never got paid.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Ideas can arise simultaneously in different people working in the same
>> industry, you know. Jef Raskin was working on these ideas before Apple
>> execs ever visited Xerox.
>
>Simultaneously? Apple wasn't even a thought, or are you claiming Apple
>been around since the 60s? Like I said Xerox got the idea from Doug.
>
>
No. But ideas are the product of human minds. And there are definitely
human beings who were alive in the 60s who worked at Apple in the late
70s - early 80s.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
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: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:18:28 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:22:27 GMT,
> Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >That's a good trick as you've not proven anything yet.
> >
>
> If you can call quoting your own comments from your own newspost
> a trick?
>
> Yes. I often do that. I force people to write the truth.
>
> What you should have been ashamed of were the kids who were
> probably reading your post and thinking Windows was a safe
> OS to use. And even while you were posting these comments, you
> knew you were lying about the facts. Then you got caught
> by admitting it to everybody on the newsgroup in your own
> message..
>
It is and lying eunuchs like you, those afraid to try anything new should
quit muddying the water with your own inadequacies.
> And now your saying I "tricked you" into doing that.
>
> And I'm also sure you still think I'm a total asshole
> for recommending to people they be safe by using Linux.
>
For two reasons one is they wouldn't be safe and the other is they'd have to
use Linux.
> It all just goes on the STACK of evidence that the
> Windows using community typically has the IQ of a
> bowl of jello.
>
As opposed to your's at a grain of sugar in the Jello.
> To listen to the comments of ANY of them is foolish.
>
> I'll say it again just to see if it sticks this time.
>
> Microsoft does not make an operating system.
>
> Linux, BSD's, Solaris's, SCO'S, SysV's,,, these
> are operating systems. Microsoft isn't associated
> with ANY of them. Not even remotely.
>
Linux doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath with the real
UNIX's BSD is good, Solaris is a pig but OK on their hardware (But I hate
being forced to buy hardware just to get software) SCO was a joke, System V
is the first and still champ of the old guard. But this business moves.
> Microsoft produces a product called Windows.
>
> Windows is NOT an operating system. An Operating
> system has default security and some chance
> of recovering from catastophic application crashes.
>
> Windows can't accomplish either of these tasks.
> And it costs an arm and a leg also.
>
Wrong as usual. Just because you cannot figure out the system the system is
weak eh?
> Windows is not an operating system. It's a large
> application which EMULATES a real operating system.
>
You are confusing platforms. Windows 3.1 and Win9x you are true. In the NT
and 2000 family you couldn't be more wrong and the fact that you brought it
up proves that you've never actully ran that which you claim to know all
about.
> But like ANY EMULATION, it has flaws. It can
> never be exactly like what it EMULATES.
>
> Windows is NOT a *NIX system.
>
True it's roots are in VMS. The true operating system you left out that
existed when UNIX was a hack developed in Bell Labs so they could test
hardware.
> Windows will NEVER be like a *NIX system.
>
> I'll throw in another TRUE statement.
>
> By 2005, Linux will displace this Windows
> Emulation on all PC's globally.
>
Put your money where your mouth is. But then you probably don't have any
since you're too cheap to pay for your systems.
> And finally, just because you can read the
> crap off a Microsoft Web site, don't believe
> for one minute that you are a fully qualified
> systems administrator.
>
define fully qualified.
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
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: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:32:56 GMT
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:09:56 GMT,
Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The default install doesn't protect anything Chad.
>> And I appreciate you comming clean with everybody
>> and clarifying that to us all.
>>
>
>This is true and I've never said otherwise.
>
I think people can read back a few posts and find
the truth. You did say the default install was
fool proof.
>> This is why Linux is more secure. The distributions
>> are built by people who actually give a shit about you.
>>
>
>Wrong. because a default installation of Linux leaves the system just as
>wide open.
>
There, there. That's a BIG BOY.
Stiffen that lip now.
We wouldn't want the world to see our
little man crying about being a dumbass.
>> 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.
>>
>
>Wrong.
>
For that Chad, your grounded for a week.
Now go to your room.
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
******************************
