Linux-Advocacy Digest #155, Volume #31 Sun, 31 Dec 00 11:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Advocacy? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Richard Steiner)
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
(spike316)
Re: Uptimes ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows ("KK")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ("JSPL")
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (mlw)
Why Hatred? (mlw)
Re: Global Configuration tool (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Conclusion ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: if linux is good, why is it so easy to freez it with netscape? (Terry Porter)
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 10:13:59 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > And what happens when YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SEQUENCE NUMBER SHOULD BE?
>
> what part of "FUCKING LEAVE THEM ALONE" do you not understand, shit for
> brains?
And what part of "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SEQUENCE NUMBER SHOULD BE?" don't
_you_ understand?
I take it you read English? You do understand the above don't you, maybe I
should explain.
The document DOES NOT STATE WHAT SEQUENCE NUMBER TO USE.
So, HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO LEAVE IT ALONE, IF I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS WAS IN THE
FIRST PLACE.
Your signal to noise ratio is getting worse Aaron, you can't even read now.
> Right where it was when you installed it.
I didn't install the service, I added it later.
> Is reading that painful for you?
When the documentation doesn't tell me what I need to know, then yes it is.
> Then start it at the end, and kill it first.
>
> S99smb
> K00smb
>
> That way, you're GURANTEED that it won't have any race conditions
> with any other part of the system.
>
> God gave you a brain, try USING it, you fool.
I guessed S99 would start it last. I did not realise K00 would kill it
first. Well I've learnt something here.
Of course, the person telling me could've had more grace in imparting this
information, but I expect this from Aaron.
> > And what happens when one daemon depends another. Do I have control
> > then? Does it NOT WORK!
>
> Yet, for millions of others, it does.
> What's wrong with you?
What? Are you saying a daemon that depends on another will work? If it
can't find what it needs it'll start? Like hell it will!
> I have no interest in your complaints about how much your pussy hurts...
What pussy? What the hell are you talking about? Blimey, if you ramble this
much maybe you should take a break. Sounds like you need it. That pile of
pink mush you think is brain is overheating.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 04:08:28 -0600
Here in alt.os.linux,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
spake unto us, saying:
>os2.advocacy removed from followups. (I wonder if anyone ported
>X to OS2? Interesting thought, that.)
XFree86 3.x has been ported to OS/2 for quite a while, as have a number
of useful X programs like GIMP and XV:
http://borneo.gmd.de/~veit/os2/xf86os2.html
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ PC/GEOS + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
Sex is not the answer; Sex is the question. "Yes" is the answer.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 11:26:59 +0100
JSPL wrote:
> I personally can't stand running Win9x for more than ten minutes because
> it always does something unpredictable (hang, crash, whatever). Then again
> so did Linux Mandrake till I erased it and put Win2k pro back in, which
> ALWAYS runs flawlessly. I'm currently checking out Whistler and have to
> say it shall (due to quality) put the slap down on all desktop competition
> for years to come. I can hear the weeping and wailing of the Linux
Well that is something we have heard many times already from win-advocates.
The NEXT version of win will be the do all, perfect OS which everyone will
use. when it was pointet out that NT4 is just shit, win-advocates say
win2000 is the real answer (I flatly refuse to install it, although as a
programmer i also have to do programming for windows). Did you know that in
certain parts of Germany and in the christian churches of germany it is NOT
allowed to use win2000 for security reasons ?
Now it will be Whistler. What next ?
------------------------------
From: spike316 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 22:37:56 +1100
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 00:45:34 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>i.e. in conventional parlance 'easy' = extremely limited abilities.
>
>
I don't know about that; my ex-girlfriend was easy, and her abilities
were anything but limited!
spike316
"This coming from a man who wrestled with a tooth up his nose."
Al Snow to Mick Foley
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 11:57:07 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:HlD36.4588$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:TSC36.1587$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:v2C36.4581$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:ZVA36.799$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Questioning statistics isn't exclusively the right of Microsoft
> > fanatics.
> > > > I base my opinions not on Netcraft numbers, but with prior
experience.
> > > >
> > > > Non-MS OS's have better uptimes.
> > > >
> > > > Period.
> > > >
> > > > End of story.
> > >
> > > Well, I have dissimilar experiences. I've had Linux boxes crash
dialy,
> > and
> > > NT systems stay up months. I've also seen it the other way around as
> > well.
> > >
> > > All this proves is that your own experience is not the reality of
> > everyone.
> >
> > Exactly!
> >
> > It just goes to show how bogus some of these debates actually are.
> > You weren't expecting that answer, huh?
> >
> > My personal experiences largely revolve around Web Servers and software
> > development. *nix servers, once set up properly, are boxes I can pretty
> much
> > forget and take for granted. (Until a piece of hardware craps out) OTH,
> I've
> > had to get out of bed and go to an office in my bathrobe to reboot an NT
> web
> > server on several occasions. I refuse to have anything to do with them
> now.
> > They're a breeze to set up, but, not-a-breeze to live with. The place
I'm
> > hacking for now is gearing up a web strategy and I was going to refuse
to
> be
> > a part of it until I heard that the solution would be non-MS. Turns out
> the
> > head honcho had his fair share of NT run-ins too. Marching to an office
in
> > fuzzy slippers is something we prefer not to do again!
>
> This is a rather silly argument. Even if we were to take at face value
that
> your experience with NT has been such, there is absolutely no reason you
> should have to drive somewhere to reboot the server.
>
> If it were really a problem, there are any number of solutions to the
> problem, some of them hardware based, some of them software based (for
> instance, you might have a watchdog machine that does HTTP requests
> periodically and if the server fails to respond for any length of time, it
> does a remote reboot. If the system is blue screened, then you can tell
NT
> to reboot automatically on a blue screen. If the entire server is locked
up
> (even network services), something i've never seen that wasn't hardware
> related (bad memory, failed hard drive with swap partiiton on it, etc..),
> then you could spend a few hundred dollars on a remote power cycle switch
if
> you're that paranoid.
> None of these solutions requires you to go anywhere in the middle of the
> night, and any shop that was worried about such problems and doesn't use
> these techniqes or something similar ones isn't worth what you're paying
> them.
> You might argue that they should be unnecessary, and i'd agree.
> However, I have seen shops where their own apps had memory leaks or other
> problems that would eventually cause the server to stop responding (using
up
> all memory is a good way to do that, even in Unix (yes, yes.. I know about
> ulimits, i'm just making a point)).
The site refered to was a smallish web server start-up that had fewer than
400 customers. The server was a dual-processor Proliant with a RAID-5
hardware controlled disk array. US Robotics modem rack. The machine, itself,
was in perfect shape. Trust me, it was our first guess.
A machine dealing with no more than 30 or 40 simultaneous dial-up sessions,
utilizing no other software than IIS (Nothing in-house developed.), should
not have been crippled with memory leaks and lock-ups. Its not like it had a
hell of a lot to do. The performance would deteriorate markedly at random
intervals. We at first suspected hardware and then hackers. We were wrong on
both counts. When SP4 came out, it helped a bit. But not much.
I've seen Unix networks running on antiquated machinery run circles around
it with 10 times the workload.
The watchdog in question was my personal machine. I lived right across from
the place and was tied in via T1. It let me know when it failed to respond.
It checked every five seconds. Remote booting wasn't really an option
because there are other things that can go wrong. We had times where a PRI
simply needed reset - Especially when it was first brought up and the kinks
on the Sprint's end hadn't yet been ironed out. As I and another tech both
lived less than 100 yards from the place, it made more sense just to go over
and check it out first-hand.
Thank heavens they didn't decide to run a news server!
I bailed that outfit, eventually, as I was tired of the non-professional
attitude and piss-poor work ethic that pervaded the place. It wasn't worth
any amount of money to put up with. No future in dial-up web serving anyway.
Hardware sales and service is their secondary function. Another area of the
market that's dying. Hell, computers are almost disposable, now.
I'm in agreement with you that the above hassles should be a non-issue. The
only time a server should ever need brought down is for either service or
upgrades.
The code-mill I'm hacking for now is going to put together a totally
redundant system. Back-up servers, e-mail, textual pages, and phone calls
for pending problems. Once set up, we'd like to take it for granted and get
to the work that makes us money.
My other NT experiences have been with file servers and the occasional
web-proxy. I've seen some that manage to stay up for a while but I prefer a
Unix running server as i've only met one I didn't like (ancient AT&T
StarServer that gave me no end of trouble)
Tom Wilson
------------------------------
From: "KK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 12:50:48 -0000
need i reply?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 08:24:30 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
>
> First, on the S/370 I worked on in high school, then another IBM
> mainframe that I used at Purdue, a 3rd one that I used at Ford,
> and a 4th one I used at Kmart.
>
And yet you never learned how to use xedit.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 09:09:56 -0500
Reply-To: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92n1ld$2s9$07$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JSPL wrote:
>
> > I personally can't stand running Win9x for more than ten minutes because
> > it always does something unpredictable (hang, crash, whatever). Then
again
> > so did Linux Mandrake till I erased it and put Win2k pro back in, which
> > ALWAYS runs flawlessly. I'm currently checking out Whistler and have to
> > say it shall (due to quality) put the slap down on all desktop
competition
> > for years to come. I can hear the weeping and wailing of the Linux
>
> Well that is something we have heard many times already from
win-advocates.
> The NEXT version of win will be the do all, perfect OS which everyone will
> use. when it was pointet out that NT4 is just shit, win-advocates say
> win2000 is the real answer (I flatly refuse to install it, although as a
> programmer i also have to do programming for windows). Did you know that
in
> certain parts of Germany and in the christian churches of germany it is
NOT
> allowed to use win2000 for security reasons ?
So are you saying that because in one miniscule corner of the earth a
certain product is illegal, that this PROVES the product is bad? I don't
quite get the point your trying to make.
At NASA you can't install Linux (or anything else) on the laptops which are
taken into space. You may only run Windows95. Hmmm...
>
> Now it will be Whistler. What next ?
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 09:33:00 -0500
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> "Lord Metalicat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Must be a really smart ass to steal Open Source..
>
> I'd like to see someone steal Microsoft source then give it back to them --
> Fully debugged. ;)
There in lies the problem. The methodologies Microsoft uses preclude the
ability to fully debug.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why Hatred?
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 09:49:22 -0500
I can understand why Linux users hate Windows, it is something we are
too frequently forced to use even though it, as an operating
environment, is terrible at best.
What I can't understand, is the bitter hatred and resentment that some
of the Windows zealots have. They have freedom of choice, they can use
their environment to their hearts content, they can buy almost any
software for it. Why spread FUD and criticize a different environment?
The only reason I can come up with is fear. They must be afraid of
Linux. The only reason they would have to be afraid is because Linux is
better than Windows. They have to know this, else they would not be
afraid.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.linux.sucks,alt.linux.slakware
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 14:58:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 20:51:11 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Flat head, is more like it.
>
> I'm not the one who has to pound one's head against the wall in
> frustration begging manufacturers to support Linux.
Maybe you should learn to write a driver for your favorite device(s).
Contribute instead of complaining.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 15:12:39 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Sit down, you socialist.
You must be the what I laughingly call the
"moderator" of this what I laughingly call
the "discussion".
Besides, I'm already sitting.
Besides, I'm not a socialist. That would
require joining some sort of organization.
Except for the Acoustical Society of
American, the last organization I joined,
quite a long time ago, was the Four Aces
(Augusta Georgia Atari club).
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 15:16:12 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> I hope all of you have seen how I have finally won this argument. My
> two only opponents (Chris and Max) have descended into infantile
> name-calling because they refuse to debate on facts and merit.
Actually, I think we're tired of waiting for you to produce
facts and argue with merit (logic). "Arguing" about facts with you is
like arguing about race relations with a Nazi.
Hasta la vista, baby.
Chris
(Now to see if the net mythos is true.)
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 15:20:06 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> Like I said... please lay off the ad hominem. You're one post from a
> killfile position.
Damn, so close!
> > You lie.
>
> When have I lied in this thread? Please document it.
Why should I bother?
> > You claim to quote facts, but no, you lie.
>
> When have I lied? If it's so certain, please detailed it?
Why should I bother?
> While your at it, please show where Republicans have bent the rules.
> After all, this is what T. Max was claiming, which is an obvious
> lie. I called him a liar, and I proved it. Now, prove why I am a liar.
If you can explain how one can do that on Usenet.
> I will be sure to point out EACH and EVERY typo you produce from here
> on out, as I guess you assume that you're perfect and never make
> errors.
Oh, I make my share, usually "sound-alike" mistakes.
> >
> > I do not wish to debate like an adult with you.
>
> You do not with to debate as an adult at all. Your post has proven this.
Now you're catching on.
> > You are mulish and monomaniacal. I personally attack you!
> > Yahhhhhhhh! Attack!! Begone, dumb-ass! Charlatan! Parrot!
> > Bird-brain! You prove nothing except you are a silly person!
>
> <sigh>
>
> *PL0NK*
>
> I really hope you grow up soon, really.
Whew, I think it worked! Imagine that, pretending to be
reasonable...!
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 15:15:51 GMT
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92lsbd$1as2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And is the uptime listed for the Netware, or the IIS? Without this
> > crucial bit of information, you're still just assuming the numbers are
> > no good because you don't like the results. As long as the uptime
> > reported is for the Netware box, we don't really care whether its a web
> > site or a fire wall, because it doesn't matter.
>
> The uptime is listed for.... drum roll please.... nothing. They can't get
> uptime because the firewall is appropriately not providing it. So therefore
> it doesn't matter what they report OS wise, there's no uptime reported and
> therefore it doesn't affect the accuracy of the numbers at all. We'll put
> it in the "one more non-example" category.
It shows that it certain circumstances that they cannot determine the
uptime. How do we know, then, that in other cases, where they THINK they
can determine the uptime, they really can't and report false numbers?
All of this arguing, on both sides, is speculative. None of us knows,
beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the numbers are accurate or inaccurate.
Without a audit by a professional auditing firm, we would really never
know how accurate their algorithm for determining uptime is.
Given that they can't really determine the OS of the webserver or even
the web server platform itself with any great reliability, it stands
to reason that their uptime methods are questionable as well.
Case in point? You argue that netcraft knows that it can't determine
uptime, so it doesn't report any at all, correct? Likewise, when
determining the OS of the web server, if it can't determine it,
it says "Unknown", so therefore Netcraft is not inaccurate because
it doesn't report what it cannot determine, correct?
Well, that's an incorrect assumption because we have documented cases
where Netcraft didn't reserve itself and made a guess on the OS and
was wrong (IIS 5 on Linux, or IIS 4 on NetWare, etc). So, we know
that they don't always hold back, why would we assume that they don't
do the same with uptime?
We can't know for sure, but their process is in doubt, which makes
it untrustworthy until they can be verified by an independent
3rd party auditing firm.
-Chad
------------------------------
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: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 15:18:17 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 30 Dec 2000 23:02:48
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:27:47
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:00:24
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> >What assinine behavior did the Republicans demonstrate?
> >> >>
> >> >> Posting drivel to Usenet.
> >> >
> >> >Ah yes. And here ends the argument. When faced with FACTS, Democrats
> >> >always back down and result to personal attacks and such.
> >> >
> >> >Just admit your wrong, Max, and move on. Beware, though, admitting
> >> >your wrong and accepting the truth automatically makes you a
> >> >conservative.
> >>
> >> Guffaw. I'm not even a Democrat to begin with, you putz.
> >
> >Your actions make you an honorary one, though. You certainly are a
> >liberal, though.
>
> Strike two. I'm a moderate.
You can call yourself Mickey Mouse for all I care. You are a liberal
by actions and words.
-Chad
------------------------------
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: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 15:19:01 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 30 Dec 2000 23:01:49
> [...]
> >While your at it, please show where Republicans have bent the rules.
> >After all, this is what T. Max was claiming, which is an obvious
> >lie. I called him a liar, and I proved it. Now, prove why I am a liar.
>
> You just did.
You have a warped sense of lying.
You claimed that Republicans bent the rules. They did not, I proved it,
thus proving you a liar.
Please show me where I lied in this.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: if linux is good, why is it so easy to freez it with netscape?
Date: 31 Dec 2000 15:41:38 GMT
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000 13:32:31 +0000, Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"mike@nowhere" wrote:
>
>> On Linux, this means, if I want to read an HTML file on my local
>> disk, I must be connected to the network to do that, becuase if
>> I try to launch netscape while not connected, too bad. Here goes
>> my whole desktop session down.
>
>Funny, when I fire up Mandrake Linux, Netscape comes up, and
>displays a "welcome" file on my disk. Whether or not my modem
>is switched on. You are making this all up, aren't you?
Considering that this is the old Wintroll "Steve/Heather/Keys88" etc
why should anyone be supprised ?
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 15:50:59 GMT
JSPL wrote:
>
> runs flawlessly. I'm currently checking out Whistler and have to say it
> shall (due to quality) put the slap down on all desktop competition for
> years to come. I can hear the weeping and wailing of the Linux advocates
> now! Their supposed 3% (actually .03%) share of the desktop market will be
> eliminated as though it was never there.
> http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2000/October/os.html
1. That site merely counts the number of visitors to it. If the visitors
are equally distributed, then it might be a good reflection of systems.
2. One presumes that this site can properly enumerate UNIXen systems.
3. One is not sure if this site can handle firewalled systems or systems
using network address translation.
Since other sources of information are at odds with this one, it
might be wise to trust it not.
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 16:01:27 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Keldon Warlord 2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 03:24:44 +1200, "Adam Warner"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >"Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code"
>> >
>>
>> More proof of the twisted minds of the Penguinista's.
>>
>> It's not even funny?
>>
>
> what I don't get is how the hell can somebody "steal" something that is
> given away for free???
It's really sad when sarcasm and wit isn't noticed anymore. They
make the English language so special. As Peter Ustinov said,
English is the only language where you need to interpret the
law. :-)
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 16:06:56 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > I hope all of you have seen how I have finally won this argument. My
> > two only opponents (Chris and Max) have descended into infantile
> > name-calling because they refuse to debate on facts and merit.
>
> Actually, I think we're tired of waiting for you to produce
> facts and argue with merit (logic). "Arguing" about facts with you is
> like arguing about race relations with a Nazi.
>
> Hasta la vista, baby.
>
> Chris
>
> (Now to see if the net mythos is true.)
Well, it would seem not. However, since Chad has killfiled me (so
he says), he did not see this message, and so the mythos stating that
"A Usenet thread will not die until someone calls someone else
a Nazi" has not yet been disproven.
Plus, there's the corollary that "If the Nazi-calling is deliberately
meant to kill the thread, it will not work", and my attempt may have
been seen by the Usenet daemons as "deliberate."
Chris
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
