Linux-Advocacy Digest #170, Volume #31 Mon, 1 Jan 01 11:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Hatred? (Donn Miller)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Uptimes (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("billh")
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (Form@C)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: How do you install KDE in Redhat6.0? (SwifT -)
Re: Why Hatred? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: LCSDNYR 2001 -> standards, standards, standards (SwifT -)
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ("JSPL")
Re: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!) (Albert Ulmer)
Re: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!) (Albert Ulmer)
Re: Why Hatred? (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Linux vs Microsoft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Uptimes ("JSPL")
Re: Conclusion ("Adam Ruth")
Re: if linux is good, why is it so easy to freez it with netscape? ("Bobby D.
Bryant")
Re: Uptimes ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? (Jure Sah)
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 05:48:49 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> That depends. I'd say it's not well documented. What if you don't know
> what a default gateway is, or what multicast routing is, or what an NIS
> client is? What exactly ARE the "Flags for rwhod"? or the named flags?
Maybe this is unclear. See, the file I just showed you are the system
defaults (/etc/defaults/rc.conf). Anything you want to override, you
just copy and paste into your own local copy, which would live in
/etc/rc.conf. I know what you're going to say: "What if you don't know
what you need to override?"
But I think I see your point. FreeBSD appeals to a different kind of
user, one which knows pretty much what he/she wants ahead of time and
doesn't want to waste a whole lot of time answering GUI prompts. There
are those kind of users out there. There are the others which need a
little hand-holding, and I don't see anything wrong with that.
Slackware is a lot like FreeBSD in that there aren't any GUI config
tools. A lot of people want them this way. This is most useful, I
think, when you want to configure identical machines running the same
OS. All you need to do is copy the config files for one machine to
another.
> Yes, there are comments which mention something, but I'd hardly call that
> "well documented".
Sure they are. They describe what the function of the variable is. As
far as in-depth information about each function, well jeez, the idea is
to keep human readable and editable config files concise. 8-) If you
described everything in detail, the thing would be huge! Man pages and
the online documentation (FAQ and Handbook at www.freebsd.org) would
describe more.
-Donn
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 12:05:17 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> And security patches come out for Unix systems weekly.
>
At least they come. And its not that you need every patch yourself.
Lots of the patches apply only in certain cases.
And windows has become the defacto standard for security risks
Ever heard of an IE without severe security risks?
To make a windows system at least a little secure, you have to disable
scripting, ActviveX, java and so on.
And THEN you can't really any longer use the web. Catch22 I'd say
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 12:13:50 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> however I'm seriously considering going back to FreeBSD because of the
> lack of standardization between distros.
>
I what way does that (even if it were true) interfere with the distro you
use? Or do you (out of habit from windows) do your daily reinstall routine?
And before in this thread i did NOT say that NT locked up every night.
Just once with an distroyed filesystem was enough for me.
I do NOT accept such things. The machine had to be reinstalled, so i
figured that in that case i could just as well install linux. It has stayed
that way, thats all. The other machine was installed with WARP 4 at that
time and is now also a linux machine.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[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?
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 11:53:13 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <
> > > So says the man who claims that medics never get shot because they're
> > > protected by a magic force field....or something.
> >
> > Same force that made you a combat vet inside the Iraqi borders. LOL!!!
>
> See bill admit that he's a liar.
LOL!!! Do you actually try to be stupid. You can't naturally be this
stupid, can you?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 11:59:14 GMT
Peter Köhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<92po97$epp$03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>>
>> And security patches come out for Unix systems weekly.
>>
>
>At least they come. And its not that you need every patch yourself.
>Lots of the patches apply only in certain cases.
<snip>
As is the case with windows. We are not talking W2K/NT here - we are
talking home/small business. Why would we need most security patches?
There isn't anything to be secured against! OK, there are malicious java
bits and, in particular, VB scripting - which I won't allow. VBS is just
too silly and disabling it doesn't prevent you using most web sites. At the
end of the day though, at worst you will kill a machine and need a complete
re-install. Providing you keep a backup of your latest game saves, home
finance spreadsheets, whatever, even that isn't an enormous problem. The
windows install is usually no worse than a Linux install nowadays.
W2K/NT/Linux is completely different and, in this case, I agree with you
completely. Where a significant number of users are networked security is a
very real issue indeed.
--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 14:16:11 +0200
"Form@C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> <snip>
> >>
> >> now there's a big PKB! ....tell me, do you also laugh at "00100101"?
> >
> >Only an idiot would ask such a question.
> >
>
> And you really think that acronyms such as "GNU" and "YAST" were devised
> without a sense of humour? There *is* humour in unix/Linux but it can be
> strangely warped...
curses.h, too.
I'm assuming that the name givers thought that UI is the hardest part of
most programs as well.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 14:21:53 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:6gV36.52976$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Come on.... I thought the technicalities of server logging were common
> > knowledge around these parts. If it is too difficult for you to
understand
> > you have no business arguing the validity of standard http client/server
> > data exchanges.
> >
> > You can start by getting a server, making HTTP GET requests upon it and
> > inspecting your logs to see what info is being exchanged.
> >
>
> So what this shows is that web sites where the designer wants a counter
> and is incapable of making his own are not particularly interesting
> to Linux users....
Making a counter is not a trivial task to most people.
Especially a counter that is read by <img src>, you need to build an image
on the fly, store the current value of the counter & raise it by one, & send
the image.
That is not something I expect from the above-average web page owner.
Making a counter that gives you all the options that a TheCounter.com gives
you (never used it, but I assume you get stats and stuff like that) is even
harder.
However, since you can get a fully functional counter for free, why bother?
------------------------------
From: SwifT - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How do you install KDE in Redhat6.0?
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 14:24:58 +0100
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000, kiwiunixman wrote:
> Better yet, avoid Redhat at all costs! I have used Redhat on several
> occasions, are the best two distro's I have found are Mandrake and SuSE
> Linux esp. for newbies.
It's all in the mind. I use RedHat since 1997 on my workstation (coming
from 4.2 to 6.2 now) and without hassle. Could be because I'm used to it,
although my test-pc runs Mandrake and Debian.
RedHat has a like a bad reputation, but I wouldn't know why. It's as
stable as any other distro, the use of rpm is as neat as apt-get when you
know how to handle things, configuration of several things (including
servers, wm's etc...) goes without any hassle, the configurability (I mean
the potential to change it to your own taste) is as great as with any
other distro, ...
RedHat is a distro like any other. If you like it, you like it. If you
don't, than don't. But don't fuck it in the face because you don't...
--
SwifT
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 12:31:25 GMT
On Mon, 1 Jan 2001 03:53:48 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:5LX36.47378$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > Fact is, as long as Linux must be maintained by through text files, it's
>> > not
>> > going to be able to replace Windows.
>>
>> In some instances, it is very useful to be able to use an editor to edit
>> these text files and configure the system. Sometimes a GUI can just "get
>in
>> the way".
>>
>> I don't think Linux is going to be held back by being configured by text
>> files - I think your other excellent points are closer to the truth.
>
>You misinterpret what I said. I said as long as Linux *MUST* be maintained
>through text files. In other words, even with tools like linuxconf, you
>still need to maintain quite a bit through text files exclusively.
>
>There's nothing wrong with text configuration files, as long as there are
>easier ways to maintain it as well.
>
Allowing administrators to configure Unix through text files is the
OS's Achilles' heal. IMHO it will eventually lead to the downfall of
the OS.
In theory MS could release an OS with an entirely different structure
for the registry and not break a single application. This is possible
since the interface to the registry is controlled through regedit or
the appropriate library functions. OTOH with Unix the system is
configured through any text editor and the configuration parameters
are exposed at the lowest level - through the file system. Any small
change to these files would break numerous programs.
An open system like Unix is somewhat analogous to having hardware
without drivers - all software would be exposed to the internal
operation of the hardware. This is what it was like in the early '90s
- take a look at the early source code for NCSA telnet and you will
see that there was different code for different Ethernet cards. The
first thing you did before buying a new Ethernet card was ensure it
was "NE2000 compatible" - otherwise you may be buying a host of
compatibility problems. Packet drivers providing a standard software
interface solved these problems.
Unix is more or less stuck. Its open design prevents it from ever
undergoing any sort of radical redevelopment. I know a lot of the
people in this group think that Gnome or KDE or linuxconf is a radical
redevelopment. But this is just window dressing (pun intended). In
the meantime MS has made the transition from DOS, Windows 3.1, 95/98
and on to NT/2000 while breaking relatively few applications. All of
these OS's have very different natures - especially NT versus the
others.
The one thing that Windows haters love to attack the most is the
registry. Why did MS ever give up those nice .ini files? The irony
is that the introduction of the registry is probably one of the most
important changes MS has made. Even if NT/2000 doesn't survive it is
difficult to see an open and inflexible OS like Unix surviving much
longer.
------------------------------
From: SwifT - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LCSDNYR 2001 -> standards, standards, standards
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 14:41:55 +0100
On Mon, 1 Jan 2001, JAR wrote:
[snip - a call for standardisation]
> This is a call to the Linux Community of Developers to standardize AT
> LEAST these portions of Linux software=85.=20
I completely agree, but I don't think Linux is going the wrong way (yet).
> 1. Installation of software
As always, tarballs (./configure, make, su -c 'make install') stay (oh yes
they will). Package-like installing (cfr deb, rpm, jbl, ...) goes the
right way: easy, user-friendly and without any hassle. I don't think it's
necessary to evolve to one package. Each type of packaging has it
advantages and disadvantages. It's a choice, a mindgame if you will. Some
people like the deb-packages since they are extremely easy to install.
Some others want rpm, since the availability of those files is enormous.
Some people stay with the tarballs.=20
I don't think Linux is going the wrong way.
> 2. Removal of software
With packages without any hassle. With tarballs you should look at the
Makefile before 'make install'-ing and search for 'make uninstall'. If
that's available (and correctly programmed), there isn't any other hassle.
This could be one point of discussion (tarballs - uninstalling software),
but I don't know enough about tarballs (I only use them if I can't find
any rpm-files for it) so I'd better shut up :-/
> 3. Upgrading of software
Again, with packages no troubles. Tarballs are also without any hassle,
since upgrading is very simpel. Configuration-files stay (thus not the way
M$ handled things, i.e. registry), binaries get upgraded, libraries are
=2E.. how do they say it... renewed? I mean, a newer version of library
doesn't overwrite things (f.i. libsmpg-2.0-3.so.2), only has a greater
version-number (f.i. libsmpg-2.1-1.so.2). And ldconfig makes sure programs
use the right library...
> 4. Maintaining configuration files for installed software
/etc/*.conf, $HOME/.*rc, ... I think Linux (and most unix-like OS'ses) are
doing a great job on that. They are easy to back-up, easy to modify
(manually AND with scripts/tools), ...
--=20
SwifT
------------------------------
From: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 09:18:54 -0500
Reply-To: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:6gV36.52976$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Come on.... I thought the technicalities of server logging were common
> > knowledge around these parts. If it is too difficult for you to
understand
> > you have no business arguing the validity of standard http client/server
> > data exchanges.
> >
> > You can start by getting a server, making HTTP GET requests upon it and
> > inspecting your logs to see what info is being exchanged.
> >
>
> So what this shows is that web sites where the designer wants a counter
> and is incapable of making his own are not particularly interesting
> to Linux users....
But maybe it's offset by the fact that the counter is free, which is
particularly interesting to most Linux users.
------------------------------
From: Albert Ulmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 13:16:15 +0100
John W. Stevens wrote:
> If he wants USB badly, using the unstable Debian will give him
> that.
> Strangely enough, unstable Debian is more stable than just about
> anything else I've ever tried.
That's the beauty of Debian. It is really one of the (if not THE) best
distributions Linux users can possibly get.
------------------------------
From: Albert Ulmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 13:27:57 +0100
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Is there an ISO image for Debian? How does one install it, as
> compare to using th RedHat or SuSE installers, in brief?
You can find the ISO images for Debian at www.linuxiso.org, the
installation is rather straight-forward. It doesn't have (or rather
need) a fancy graphical installer, if you want one of those, try out
StormLinux which is also based on Debian, but has some nice fancy additions.
> I like RedHat, but I'd rather support Debian, if it doesn't
> eat up much more time.
Debian SAVES you time by including more software packages than any other
distribution and organizing then usefully, which is certainly more than
I can say for the likes of RedHat or SuSE. Debian is clearly the most
logical distribution I know.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 15:57:24 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Allowing administrators to configure Unix through text files is the
> OS's Achilles' heal. IMHO it will eventually lead to the downfall of
> the OS.
>
what did you drink, for gods sake?
Or are you on Heroin?
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 16:03:07 +0100
Form@C wrote:
>
> W2K/NT/Linux is completely different and, in this case, I agree with you
> completely. Where a significant number of users are networked security is
> a very real issue indeed.
>
Well, thats the problem here. I work at home,I'm a programmer.
4 computers run 24 / 7 and there are also the 2 computers of the kids,
which actually run under windows as does one of my machines (for testing
purposes mainly, its a laptop). You can imagine that i would not like to
have any intruder here or get a trojan horse or a virus.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Linux vs Microsoft
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 15:22:59 GMT
So here it is the new year and no new Linux kernel yet. Goes to show
that Linux's due dates are no better than anyone elses.
------------------------------
From: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 10:32:21 -0500
Reply-To: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> My apologies. I obviously did get hot-headed, and misinterpreted your
> remark. When you mentioned http headers, I presumed you were
> misrepresenting the issue, since http headers aren't related, it
> appears, to Netcraft's numbers (or Uptime's numbers).
They are related and the sole source of Netcrafts information. The http
response to a HEAD request to the server at port 80 is the only data in
which Netcraft uses to come up with their uptime assumptions. Now, if you
look through the rfc's on the standard, industry accepted header fields
you'll find that there are none which pertain directly to "time since last
reboot" or anything even close. Therefore netcraft is using some kind of
unsupported method which is apparently impossible to duplicate. I suspect
that their method wouldn't stand up to independent analysis, which is why
they do not release their method. Uptimes.net purposely puts a header field
in which indicates time since reboot on participating machines which makes
it much more accurate if it weren't for the fact that the field can be
forged by the client at will.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 08:47:28 -0700
> So in other words, it's reporting the OS as being the proxy servers OS and
> reporting the web server of the real machine. Chances are, if the proxy
> were an OS that reported uptime it would give the uptime of the proxy
server
> as well.
Again with your hypothesis.
> When was this, anyways? "back when you worked there"? Netcraft has only
> been reporting uptimes for the last 2 months or so.
Really? Then how come they have uptime data going back as far as June '99?
I've only been aware of Netcraft in the last 9 months (the guy that runs the
runreports and nvisioncorp sites showed it to me), they had uptime data back
then.
> > True, but not my machine, so I cannot comment on why only 24 days. I
can
> > say that the sys-admin there is a Windows head and doesn't really like
> Unix,
> > but that may mean nothing. He did tell me that he bought some new
> hardware
> > last month so that may have something to do with it, but I'll ask.
>
> And this shows that the uptime is accurate, how?
It doesn't specifically, I was talking about your comment that it wasn't
very impressive. I know the data were correct a couple of months ago, and
when I talk to him today about his machine, I'll verify they're correct
again.
> You never could prove this one. Netcraft has only been reporting uptimes
> for 2 months, your claim that you verified this site with Netcraft is an
> obvious fabrication since you claim to have checked it 6 months ago.
See above. Who's fabricating?
> I don't necessarily think you're lying, but you certainly didn't bother to
> verify your claims before making them.
Actually, I didn't re-verify them for your sake. As I said in an earlier
post that those were sites that I "knew were correct at one time or
another", not sites that I monitored on a daily basis for accuracy.
> > So, anyway, what are those many sites with complex firewall schemes you
> > worked on?
>
> I never claimed I worked on many sites with complex firewalls.
Can't find the post, my memory must be going in my old age, must have been
someone else that said it.
Adam Ruth
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: if linux is good, why is it so easy to freez it with netscape?
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 09:49:44 -0600
Peter K=F6hlmann wrote:
> Well, I think the real problem is Netscape is searching for an IP-addre=
ss
> and does not find it in /etc/hosts or via a DNS-server. So its waiting
> until time-out, which can be quite a while.
Sometimes it goes into a mode where it eats 100% of CPU time until it tim=
es
out.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 08:56:29 -0700
> They are related and the sole source of Netcrafts information. The http
> response to a HEAD request to the server at port 80 is the only data in
> which Netcraft uses to come up with their uptime assumptions. Now, if you
> look through the rfc's on the standard, industry accepted header fields
> you'll find that there are none which pertain directly to "time since last
> reboot" or anything even close. Therefore netcraft is using some kind of
> unsupported method which is apparently impossible to duplicate. I suspect
> that their method wouldn't stand up to independent analysis, which is why
> they do not release their method. Uptimes.net purposely puts a header
field
> in which indicates time since reboot on participating machines which makes
> it much more accurate if it weren't for the fact that the field can be
> forged by the client at will.
The uptime numbers are not comming from any HTTP headers, as has been
discussed multiple times in this thread. The numbers come from the
synchronization number in the TCP packet. That's why most firewalls don't
report any uptime value.
Adam Ruth
------------------------------
From: Jure Sah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 15:17:29 +0100
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Alt-Fn to a new console screen, you idiot.
> >
> > You CAN'T. The whole computer is locked SOLID. The keyboard is not
> > responding, nor is the mouse, or any other human interface device attached
> > to the computer.
> >
> > It's called a "freeze", and you Linux nuts don't want to admit they exist
> > under Linux.
>
> You dipshit. The keyboard I/O is interrupt driven. It *CAN'T* freeze.
> MORON.
> Repeat after me... LINUX IS ***NOT**** LOSE-DOS.....
But it can lockup! Don't believe me? I'll send you a dos program that
causes a lockup.
--
Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
reply.
If somebody is sheep-brained he doesn't have problems with
socialization. What an irony...
Happy new year and this time the new millennium too. ;)
Those that are interested in the Mind project might look at:
HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/mind.html (updated: 24.11.00)
457863656C656E742120596F75206465636F646564206D79207365637265
74206D6573736167652E20576F756C6420796F75206C696B6520746F2067
6574206120636F7079206F662074686520736F6674776172652049207573
656420746F20656E636F6465207468697320746578743F20446F6E277420
776F7272792C2049206D61646520697420616E6420492063616E20676976
6520697420746F20796F7520666F7220465245452E
GTSC4 -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)
HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/
------------------------------
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: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 16:08:23 GMT
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Come on.... I thought the technicalities of server logging were common
> > knowledge around these parts. If it is too difficult for you to understand
> > you have no business arguing the validity of standard http client/server
> > data exchanges.
> >
> > You can start by getting a server, making HTTP GET requests upon it and
> > inspecting your logs to see what info is being exchanged.
> >
>
> So what this shows is that web sites where the designer wants a counter
> and is incapable of making his own are not particularly interesting
> to Linux users....
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The site shows whatever the reader wants to see, because the site does not
show, as far as I can tell, any description of the context of the counter,
its technology, how it is used, who uses it, the source of the number, and
so on.
Until someone finds an explanation, all the site shows is that thecounter.com
shows a bar graph that has its longest entries for the Windozzzzzz operating
systems. All the frikkin' caption says is "OS Stats"!!!
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
******************************
