Linux-Advocacy Digest #139, Volume #31 Sat, 30 Dec 00 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Conclusion (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Conclusion (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:38:19 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 21:59:24
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>The hand recounts were illegal for numerous reasons.
I await your enumeration.
>The U.S. Supreme Court is hardly Republican. It would've been a unanimous
>and obvious decision if it weren't for the hard-line left-wing ultra-liberals
>who desented (Ginsberg, Kennedy) and who issued wacko and off-beat dissents
>that legal scholars are still scratching their heads at.
Thanks for the rhetoric. Lord knows, there's not enough of that in this
discussion.
>The truth is, the Democrats bended the laws far beyond reasonable tolerance
>and the Surpeme Court had no recourse but to set it straight again.
What utter tripe.
>The hand
>recounts should've have gone on past the Nov 14 dealine, let alone have been
>certified after that deadline. That's what the law says. That's the law that
>existed on Nov. 6 which the U.S. Constitution deems as the law that must
>stand throughout the election and contest periods defined in State Law. The
>Democrats completely trampled on this. It's just another example of the Liberal
>"Ends justify the means, no matter who dies" philosophy.
Yet that is hardly the real crux of the matter, which makes your
position little more than empty posturing.
>> To be honest, I'm more concerned with the Republican party members
>> correcting paperwork for Republican absentee ballots but not Democratic
>> ones, in direct violation of election rules.
>
>1.) It was perfectly within the laws. This was certified by TWO Circuit
>judges and the FL Supreme Court itself.
I doubt either decision used the term "perfectly within the law". Nor
do I believe that these cases addressed this issue specifically, but I'd
be glad to learn more about the matter.
>2.) The paperwork they filled out was normally filled out by the computer,
>but due to a software error (they were probably running a Unix of some
>kind) many of the applications were not filled in correctly or at all.
>
>This all happens before the application is even sent to the voter. When
>they came out of the machine, they were correct BY HAND and then sent
>to the voter. There was no wrong-doing, no under-the-table type stuff.
I never suggested there was any "under-the-table wrong-doing". What
happened with the ballots was irrelevant. The fact is, several thousand
Republican ballots, which we must presume would favor Bush, would not
have been submitted if the Republicans had not broken the rules
(election law, after all).
>It just so happens that many of them were Republican because a large
>majority of absentee ballots are request by Republicans.
No; ALL of the registrations corrected were Republican ones; the
Republican party officials who filled in the missing data wouldn't have
had the info for the Democratic registrations to begin with, and they
weren't given those to correct by the Republican election officials
overseeing the process.
>No conspiracy, no wrong-doing. This was upheld on three occasions.
No, it was not over-turned on three occasions. There is a difference.
I'm still unaware of a court case that looked at this point
specifically, and determined that there was no problem with the issue.
And, admittedly, if presented with one, I would consider it to be in
error.
>Please Max, stop the lying. It only serves to embarass you.
And the horse you rode in on...
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:38:20 GMT
Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000
16:10:35 -0700;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 07:06:24
>> [...]
>> >What I'm trying to get across is that, by extending recounts past December
>> >18th would have disenfranchised the entire state. Election law supercedes
>> >any decision the Florida courts might have made. The deadline was statutory.
>>
>> You still seem to be unaware of the fact that it is the very purpose of
>> the Supreme Courts to determine whether statutes themselves are being
>> lawfully and Constitutionally followed.
>
>And the Supreme Court spanked the Florida Supreme Court . . . TWICE! . .
>.
>for failing in that duty.
The first statement is true. The second is pure spin.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:38:21 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 30 Dec 2000 00:29:39
[...]
>> >All of this is moot anyway. Had the Florida Supreme Court stuck to their
>> >guns, the Legislature would have sent the electors anyway as is their legal
>> >responsibility.
>> >
>> >All I can say is that I'm glad its over!
>>
>> That last sentence summed it up; the previous paragraph was an
>> aberration of reasoning.
>
>How are obvious facts an aberration of reasoning?
Stating that particular conjectures are 'obvious facts' is an aberration
of reasoning, obviously.
>I think it more accurate to say that they are an aberration to your
>perceptions.
When in doubt, use the word 'perceptions', eh?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:38:22 GMT
Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 28 Dec 2000 13:42:10
>
>> >I can't remember one time where the Republicans even attempted to monkey-
>> >wrench the process.
>>
>> Oh, that's a huge surprise.
>
>If you have specifics, Max . . . post 'em.
Specifics about what? A bit jumpy with the "prove it" reaction, aren't
we, John? I need specifics to support the obvious fact that Chad
wouldn't remember any time when Republicans attempted to monkey-wrench
the process, regardless of whether they occurred, beyond the fact that
he would state it on Usenet?
>> >At every turn, they were trying to stand up for the laws that were in
>> >place in Florida. Katherine Harris followed, to the T I might add, her
>> >Florida Constitutional and Legal responsibilities without wavering. It's
>> >somewhat amusing that Democrats now personally attack her for following
>> >the law because, of course, they hate the law.
>>
>> Which law said that recounts should be stopped if you're too close to
>> the deadline to resume them after the courts have decided on the
>> legality of your action?
>
>What a twisted phrase!
The term is 'convoluted'.
>What are you talking about? The last Supreme Court action? If so (and
>I'm guessing here, 'cause of your insistence on avoiding, at all costs,
>posting specifics . . . ) then the law is "irreparable harm".
I don't avoid posting "specifics"; I just don't post them, unless I have
them. The trick is to not make outrageous claims summarizing events in
the most partisan means possible, then you don't need to "prove" that
the other side is lying and incompetent.
>> >On the other hand, Democrats were doing their best, at every turn, to
>> >break, manipulate, and work around the law to meet their ends.
>>
>> Yea, right. You know, if it weren't for bullcrap like this, Chad, I
>> wouldn't even care who won.
>
>Bullcrap!? Where . . . ?
You really need directions to the previous paragraph?
>Once again . . . specifics, please?
OK, if you insist:
"Democrats were doing their best, at every turn, to break, manipulate,
and work around the law" is bullcrap. (Next time, ask someone to read
the message and explain it to you, if you're that lost.)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:38:24 GMT
Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 26 Dec 2000
>> 14:53:53 -0700;
>> >>
>> >> >Why would *ANY* American consider it frightening to do so?
>> >>
>> >> Now, here we have the classic kind of bullshit, soft-headed,
>> >> transparently moronic argument that Republicans and right-wingers of all
>> >> stripes typically use.
>> >
>> >Ah, yes. Let's not start without the obligatory personal attacks.
>>
>> I have no choice but to see almost every action of a Republican as a
>> personal attack;
>
>You do have a choice, Max.
>
>> it is an self-preservation mechanism.
>
>It is a self-destructive attitude. It turns you mind off.
Which is why I would avoid it, if I could. But the last time I ignored
my instincts and supported Republicans, they screwed things up Big Time.
>> No; my definitions are derived from reason,
>
>No they're not. The choice you made (as stated above), created your
>definitions.
Blah blah blah. Next time, wait two sentences before sniping, if you're
this lost.
>> They are supported by reason and facts;
>
>No, they're not. You have not presented facts, you've made
>unsupported accusations, used personal attacks, and in general
>made no presentation of any reasoning what so ever.
I didn't say I presented facts, I said my opinions were supported by
facts. I'm getting very bored with your sniping, though, and the
supposition that I have no facts because you wish there to be no facts
opposing the idea that Republicans are Good and Democrats are Bad is
enough to make me give up this charade.
I wish I could say "thanks for your time." I wish it would help.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:38:25 GMT
Said Steve Mading in alt.destroy.microsoft on 30 Dec 2000 02:39:52 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Said Steve Mading in alt.destroy.microsoft on 28 Dec 2000 18:07:42 GMT;
>: [...]
>:>: Actually, its the court cases that define the word "monopoly" to begin
>:>: with, regardless of whether you are ignorant of that fact or not.
>:>
>:>The definitions used in court, laid down by the courts, don't apply
>:>outside the court.
>
>: They were not "laid down" by the court; they were observed and
>: documented by the court.
>
>:>The government doesn't have jurisdiction over the
>:>English language, especially when the English language exists in
>:>multiple countries.
>
>: Neither do you.
>
>Never said I did. I'm just observing that your usage doesn't match
>the way the word is actually used by most others. Langauge is
>completely arbitrary, such that whatever the common usage is BECOMES
>the correct usage over time, whether it originally was correct or not.
Which is why it is so important to choose the correct word, instead of
parrot whatever word someone else uses due to ignorance. The word
"monopoly" as used in some contexts is not problematic, but when you
start comparing Microsoft to AT&T, it highlights the fact that you don't
know what you're talking about if you don't understand the more precise
meaning of the term.
>The courts cannot legislate English language.
Nor can you.
>:>: were, indeed, bugs, and the speaker was using the term "issues" as a
>:>: euphemism for bugs, not to describe any potential issue which may or may
>:>: not be a bug.
>:>
>:>The above paragraph is self-contradictory.
>
>: You may sincerely hope so, I guess.
>
>:>You start out by correctly
>:>saying that my stance is that "not all issues are bugs", then go on
>:>to accuse me of saying that they are.
>
>: The quote I mentioned was not yours.
>
>Then you should have attributed it as such.
I didn't attribute it, or even quote it, at all. You got confused,
that's all.
>:>Perhaps you forgot a "not"
>:>somewhere in there?
>:>
>:>: Maybe not *all* issues are bugs, but all of *those*
>:>: issues were bugs.
>
>: No, I don't think so. When the Microsoft employee was quoted referring
>: to known and unresolved problem "issues", he was using the word
>: euphemistically, and might as well have used "bugs", but for the fact
>: that it is not politically (and therefore financially) correct to say
>: so.
>
>I'm amazed at your powers of ESP.
Its not ESP; its reasoning. You should try it some time.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:38:27 GMT
Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000
["more trolling"]
Save your breath, John. Talk to Aaron; he likes this kind of posturing
bullshit. I'd prefer to engage in more interesting discussions than
your continued attempts to ridicule everything I say.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:38:28 GMT
Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000
[T. Max:]
>> You don't seem to grasp the abstraction of "credibility".
>
>Wrong. I don't share *YOUR* definition of "credibility".
>
>> And let me
>> point out that it does not increase my credibility, and might well
>> detract from it, that you agree with me.
>
>If so, then credibility is worthless. The universe does not care
>how you *FEEL* about something. Disliking gravity won't save your
>life in fall.
The universe isn't the issue. Credibility only matters to other
reasonable people; you are right that it is not a physical force.
[...more trolling snipped...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:38:29 GMT
Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000
16:42:20 -0700;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 26 Dec 2000
>>
>> >Maybe . . . but his responses to you are also the same kind of response
>> >you would make to someone who is deluded . . . a fixed, constant
>> >repetition of a question or fact, one that encourages the recipient to
>> >re-consider their delusion, is a common practice in certain kinds of
>> >therapy.
>>
>> Its more often someone trolling.
>
>You read minds, too?
No, I just apply reason.
>Sometimes, habits stick.
Always, trolls are annoying.
>> >Attempting to rephrase, or letting the point slip, encourages the
>> >patient to find a way to hang on to their delusions.
>>
>> So acting moronic is a sign that the person you're talking to is
>> deluded?
>
>Straw man.
>
>Aaron was being repetitious, not moronic.
Bullshit; he's being moronic by being repetitious. You're just sticking
up for him because you want to leave the door open for other trolls to
inhibit intellectual discourse with pitiful obfuscations, since without
that, you would be unable to post.
>> This isn't a clinical exchange, in case you were deluded for a
>> moment on that matter.
>
>Sometimes, habits stick.
>
>> Aaron is wasting everyone else's time, and you're wasting it as well.
>> You're a couple of trolls; go away.
>
>Mirror time, Max.
>
>Take a good long look in the mirror at . . . the troll!
Yea, right <*smirk>. Sorry, that's a trick I got passed in the fourth
grade.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:38:31 GMT
Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 \
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 26 Dec 2000
>> 16:20:32 -0700;
>> >Did it ever occur to you that people just as intelligent as yourself
>> >could listen to Rush, think about what he says . . . and agree with him?
>>
>> It is evident that intelligent people listen to Rush and agree with him;
>> all else is conjecture, though we might suppose they think about what he
>> says, though obviously not enough if they agree with him.
>
>Fine, right up to: "though obviously not enough if they agree with him".
>
>Do you have anything, except bigotry and prejudice to back up that
>statement?
I have no bigotry or prejudice to back it up to begin with. It is a
statement based on experience, not bigotry.
>"Anybody who agrees with a blithering twit like T. Max obviously isn't
>thinking enough."
>
>S'Ok . . . right? Since you are so eminently fair and reasonable, you
>will agree that that statement is just as valid and fair as yours is,
>re: Rush, right?
S'OK for you to say it. I'm not going to waste any time trying to
"prove" that you're wrong. For all I know you're right! It is neither
as valid nor as fair as my statement concerning Rush Limbaugh, but I
can't even think of trying to refute it, directly. I merely to continue
to provide more opinions on which others can judge whether I'm
reasonable, just as Rush did. I certainly hope I come out better than
he has, but even that is not a high enough bar for me to be satisfied
with.
>> I'm not
>> second-guessing them, but it is not evidence of their intelligence that
>> they agree with him, no.
>
>To relate listening to Rush to a persons intelligence, either positively
>or negatively is pure ignorance.
No, it is the opposite. Ignorance is what you are espousing; a
purposeful (and politically correct) ignorance concerning the
intelligence of Rush Limbaugh fans. I suggest that they are not as
intelligent, and given that your continued lambasting has not even made
me a tiny bit self-conscious about my conjectures on this subject, as
people who recognize that Rush Limbaugh is a soft-headed blow-hard.
>As I've already pointed out . . .
Feel free to *refute* my conjecture, through reasoning and evidence, but
simply pointing out that it is my opinion is not really enough to
invalidate it as a working theory.
>> Coincidence, more often; even Rush says
>> something that isn't false, every once in a while.
>
>You have yet to point out any false statements that Rush has
>made . . . at all. And he has a whole web site to pick and choose
>from.
An intriguing challenge, to see if I can find something that is
irrefutably false amidst the huge pile of utter bullshit which Rush has
created and compiled (and, unfortunately, inspired.) But I'm not
on-line right now, and you didn't provide a link, so I'm afraid I'll
have to "make your day" by failing to provide the "proof" you desire
that Rush Limbaugh is a pompous moron.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:38:39 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 13:44:26
[...]
>We have several examples showing Netcraft's inability to provide
>accurate numbers for uptime, or even the web server OS.
That isn't true. You have no evidence that any numbers provided by
Netcraft are inaccurate.
>Several sites
>show that it's always down (www.sauder.com) yet the site is always
>available.
You don't understand what "uptime" means, if you think this has any
bearing on the issue. I don't know what you mean by "several sites show
that its always down", or what that has to do with Netcraft's numbers.
>They must have a cluster of web servers that they reboot
>every 30 minutes for Netcraft's numbers to be correct. In which case
>the Netcraft numbers are misleading anyhow because it doesn't differentiate
>between clustered servers.
Obviously, they do "differentiate" clustered servers, by representing
them in just the way you have observed but seem to be unable to
comprehend. This is conjecture, though, since I don't know what numbers
you're talking about. If possible, post the numbers from Netcraft about
Sauder or whatever that support your assertion that Netcraft's numbers
are unreliable. It is fair use; you can't get in trouble.
>They are also incapable of accurately, and reliably determining the
>web server application and the OS it's running on.
So?
>If they can't find
>out that simple bit of information, it's highly unlikely they'd be
>able to provide anywhere near accurate numbers for uptime.
What a load of horse shit. I expected better than that, even from you,
Chad.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:38:40 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 21:46:11
[...]
>This was all detailed in another thread (titled "Uptimes", I believe).
>Looking back through that should provide you numerous examples.
I think you'll find I contributed quite heavily to that thread, and I
can assure that your statement is mistaken. No examples of erroneous
data were provided there, either.
>> > They are also incapable of accurately, and reliably determining the
>> > web server application and the OS it's running on. If they can't find
>> > out that simple bit of information, it's highly unlikely they'd be
>> > able to provide anywhere near accurate numbers for uptime.
>>
>> Could you provide some examples of this?
>
>Same as above. Hotmail used to do this for a while as they were switching
>over to Win2K. It would say IIS 5.0 on BSD.
How peculiar.... ;-/
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
