Linux-Advocacy Digest #289, Volume #31 Sat, 6 Jan 01 02:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Could only... (Jim Richardson)
Re: Microsoft is 20-years BEHIND other OS vendors (Jim Richardson)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Jim Richardson)
Re: So how do we get from here to there? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Uptimes (Jim Richardson)
Re: Uptimes (Jim Richardson)
hey everyone look! A movie about Linux! (jtnews)
Re: Red Hat dead/dying? (Shane Phelps)
Re: Why NT? ("Todd")
Re: Why NT? ("Todd")
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com ("Tom
Wilson")
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com ("Tom
Wilson")
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com ("Tom
Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 13:34:50 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 05:51:10 +0000,
JM, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 23:10:10 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>> > Preserving the right to gun ownership *IS* a policy.
>>> >
>>> > Read "The Federalist Papers", and you will understand the US Constitution,
>>> > and PRECISELY why the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is spelled out within it.
>
>>> Yet even after the mass murders carried out at schools in America,
>>> nothing still hasn't been learnt.
>
>>Actually, we learned several things:
>>
>>1. Outlawing things doesn't prevent criminal behavior.
>
>It makes it more difficult.
Exactly how difficult is it to get illicit drugs?
>
>> It is illegal for minors to carry pistols
>
>Yes, making things illegal ensures it doesn't happen.
guffaw. Since murder is illegal, are you claiming that murder doesn't happen?
>> It is illegal to have firearms on school grounds
>
>Yes, making things illegal ensures it doesn't happen.
so there are no murders...
>> It is illegal to brandish a weapon
>
>Yes, making things illegal ensures it doesn't happen.
and no rapes...
>> It is illegal to discharge a weapon with the city limits (of most cities)
>
>Yes, making things illegal ensures it doesn't happen.
and no armed robbery...
>> It is illegal to discharge a weapon with the intent to murder
>> another human being.
>
>Yes, making things illegal ensures it doesn't happen.
right, we're back to the "murder is illegal therefore it never happens."
theory.
>>All of those activities WERE ALREADY ILLEGAL....so, exactly *what*
>>would another law do, exactly?
>
>Stop them getting guns in the first place?
ooh! the three wishes theory again.
>>Do you think it would have prevent those with criminal intent from
>>getting weapons? If you believe that, you're insane.
>
>It would make it much more difficult.
just like how difficult it is to get drugs?
>It would also discourage people who carry guns anyway, and then end up
>shooting people, or those who carry guns just because everyone else
>does.
Except that this doesn't happen, at least in the US, maybe NZ folks are
inherently more violent than Americans, I don't know.
>>Heroin, Cocaine, Marijuana, PCP, Ecstasy, Methamphetamines, etc. are
>>already illegal in the USA...and yet, they are everywhere...in fact,
>>the price of illicit drugs IN HIGH SECURITY PRISONS is no higher
>>than out on the streets.
>
>Drugs cannot be compared to guns. Doing so is a fallacy.
Right, drugs get used up, and are brought into the country by the container
load, guns last for hundreds of years and can be brought into the country by
the container load.... hm, sounds like there is a *huge* diff. Of course, ammo
gets used up too, but it stores damn near indefinately and can easily be
brought in with the drugs ^h^h^h^h guns...
>> CONTRABAND LAWS DO NOT WORK.
>>At least not in the US. We have too many miles of coastline.
>
>I thought we were talking about guns, not drugs. Another SM.
Hm, I think this is either another example of the "three wishes" theory, or is
a new one, which we could call the "Ostrich theory"
>
>>As for guns...the AK-47 is designed to be manufactured by primitive
>>societies with a MUCH lower level of technology than the Average
>>American can obtain with $5000 of machine-shop equipment.
>>
>>Any policy which relies upon contraband laws is idiotic.
>>
>>Any policy which relies upon contraband laws against devices that
>>can be manufactured in someone's basement are insane.
>
>Hmmmm.... Murder is contraband at the moment, and it still happens.
>Maybe we should legalise it.
Murder is an action, not an object, see the diff? I knew you could...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Microsoft is 20-years BEHIND other OS vendors
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:11:23 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 09:42:02 -0500,
MH, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>>
>> > Windows lacks things. Linux lacks things. And which lacks in more
>> > (desktop) functionality? LINUX.
>>
>> Actually you are confused. You're probably thinking of apps.
>
>I don't know about the other poster, but I'm thinking of everything.
Tell me please, how do I get KDE2 on windows?
>
>> Windows has a huge head start in apps, 'tis true.
>
>You state the obvious so well.
>
>> But the cat is out of the bag, and a wave Linux apps is beginning.
>
>Oh my, where have we heard this one before? And when?
>Solution: Every year since the year after linux hit the net.
Linux "hit the net" from day one (for linux anyway) it was M$ who was ignoring
the net in 1991.
>> However the look and feel of the desktop metaphor is one
>> area where we must admit that windows is rather lame
>> in comparison to modern Unix GUIs.
>
>The only thing I'm prepared to admit, in response to your post, is that you
>must be reading too much Slashdot propaganda. Getting caught up in that warm
>and fuzzy Eric Raymond diatribe is a bit like bad acid.
>
Hm, I use linux daily, I sometimes have to use windows at a clients, I know
which I prefer, and the for what. The only thing windows does better for me is
some games.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:54:59 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 00:22:56 -0500,
Aaron R. Kulkis, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Steve Mading wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : What's funny about that? Nobody can be responsible for what
>> : other people send them . . .
>>
>> You have just demonstrated yourself to be smarter than a large number
>> of corporate IT policy writers.
>
>Tell me about it. I know somebody in a serious legal situation
>because of what was sent to him....
>
Yeah, you want to get someone in real trouble? send him some (illegal in the
US) porn from out of the country...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: So how do we get from here to there?
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:59:16 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 30 Dec 2000 23:28:00 +0200,
Kai Henningsen, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote on 26.12.00 in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 01:15:31 +0800, Todd wrote:
>> >
>> >"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >First of all, that statement is false. I *chose* to use Windows 2000
>> >because it lets me do more than Linux by a long shot. Linux is simply too
>> >frustrating to use to be useful at this point.
>>
>> Depends on what you are trying to do with it. Obviously, if you confuse
>> it with Microsoft Windows, and try to run MS Office on it, it really
>> will be frustrating and difficult to use.
>
>I hear someone's planning to install Linux on his company desktops, put
>VMware on those boxen, and install NT4 in the VMware. Poof! Instant remote
>adminnable NT desktops. If anything goes wrong, just replace the disk
>image with a clean version - everything interesting lives on the Samba
>server anyway. *And* you can redirect the NT session to a remote X if the
>user needs assistance.
>
>Oh, and since NT then only talks to the VMware simulated hardware, then
>whatever hardware you actually use on those desktops, they can have
>identical NT installations.
>
>And the power users can get an additional Linux login.
Sounds like a nice idea if there is heavy enough hardware, although it would up
the licence costs for the VMWare licences wouldn't it? Still, you can wean
folks off of windows gradually that way.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 22:15:40 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:39:29 GMT,
T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Said JSPL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 3 Jan 2001 01:50:27 -0500;
>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> Thanks for the decode, but according to Netcraft, they actually base
>>> their identification of OS on packet characteristics, not on the
>>> information provided by the web server.
>>
>>Come on, how stupid do you think people are? It's derived from the http
>>header not some secret "packet characteristic".
You might want to do some more research. I recommend the source code for nmap
and queso. They are both gpl and are available pretty much anywhere gpl is
found... There's also a good article on fingerprinting in phrack 53 I think.
At least one of the issues near that number.
>
>Chances are you can do a bit of research on Netcraft's list, and you
>could figure this out by examining those systems which identify an OS
>different than what is "officially" identified as the 'web server'.
>According to Netcraft (and, no, I do not think they are stupid, nor do I
>have reason to believe they are lying) they don't use the http response
>itself, but the packet characteristics of that response. This seems
>reasonable, since the http headers are easily modified, while the packet
>characteristics are not.
>
>>The key IP header fields I know of are the souce ip address, destination IP
>>address, datagram ID's, checksum, and a few others which in no way divulge
>>the operating system and server.
>
>I suspect they may use default fragment and window size, but that's just
>a guess.
>
>>Then there's this:
>><quote>
>> Netcraft determines the operating system of the queried host by looking in
>>detail at the network characteristics of the HTTP reply received from the
>>web site.
>></quote>
>>
>>Now post a link to an RFC which defines where in a TCP packet that the
>>operating system, and server is sent. I bet you can't, because the only
>>place it exists in in the HTTP header.
Nowhere does netcraft claim that they use some value given by the server as an
OS flag. They talk about characteristics. Things like the responce of the
server to an incomplete SYN or to an otherwise malformed packet. Since the
responces to such packets are not allways part of the standard. (Or the
standards are ignored in some cases, M$ for example) it is possible to
determine the OS with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
>You seem to be misreading the statement; it clearly says that they use
>the "network characteristics", not the HTTP reply itself, to determine
>the OS. It is obvious to everyone that there is no "field" for
>identifying the OS in a TCP, or an IP, packet, so obviously they're not
>just reading a discrete value which specifically names the OS, but
>instead recognizing the "network characteristics", as they put it, of
>each OS's built-in IP stack.
>
>>> If I'm not mistaken, they ignore the OS identification provided by the
>>> web server, and use the packet characteristics to ensure that the uptime
>>> (which is used as a sequence number, not an "uptime" value, within the
>>> TCP packet) they get matches the OS. This would explain why they might
>>> "misidentify" a "server", but only in those cases they can't get uptime
>>> to begin with; the packet characteristics don't reveal the OS, and so
>>> even if the OS does use timeticks in the sequence number, Netcraft
>>> couldn't be sure who they came from.
>>
>>Once again, show us all where on earth it says that a standard IP header
>>field divulges the operating system. That's a complete waste of bytes, and
>>flies in the face of logic.
strawman, the claim is not that the standard IP header has that info, it is
that the packet characteristics contain info that can be used to fingerprint an
OS. Again, I recommend the source code for queso and for nmap (queso deals with
http requests almost exclusively, nmap has a more extensive spread of
characteristics it is looking at.
>If I knew that, I'd be competing with Netcraft. The only thing that's a
>waste of bytes is your jibbering, and the only thing that flies in the
>face of logic is your ignorant insistence that there would have to be a
>field value containing the OS in order to determine the OS from the
>network characteristics. Just because you don't understand something
>doesn't make it impossible; your lack of knowledge does not cause
>Netcraft's numbers to disappear in a puff of dust.
>
JSPL is a bit off the mark, no surprise, he hasn't done much research on this
as is patently obvious.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 22:55:50 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:06:37 -0500,
JSPL, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:92t60g$cks$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>> > The only thing I've seen are either an inability to display uptime or
>> > wildly impossible to believe number such as 13 or so pollings on a
>server
>> > showing time since last reboot to be "zero". (sauder.com). Or the
>assinine
>> > assumption that Netcraft is the only entity on earth that seems to be
>> aware
>> > of all these popular sites going down every few days.
>>
>> www.walmart.com
>
>I wasn't aware IIs 5.0 had been ported to Linux. Sounds fishy to me :-)
>
>They appear to be using a shopping program called cart.gsp and most web
>pages use the extension .gsp. Anyone have any info on what that is?
>
>
IIS 5.0?
Nmap 2.53 (not the latest, but pretty close) calls www.walmart.com
either an AIX varient on IBM RS* or solaris 2.6-2.7 with a particular flag set.
Not 100% helpful, but not IIS anything either.
Lynx -head reports that www.walmart.com claims to be IIS5.0, but that is
something that is easily faked. (Doesn't mean it is, just that it's easy) since
that info is reported by the server. You can do this easily with e.g. apache.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:33:27 -0500
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: hey everyone look! A movie about Linux!
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-201-4384756-0.html?tag=st.ne.1002.bgif.sf
Has Hollywood gone insane?
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Red Hat dead/dying?
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 17:41:34 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> John A. Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>Replace Windows with Linux....
> >>
> >>Seriously. I recently did a contract with EDS. We supported over
> >>5,000 Unix workstations at GM sites scattered all over Michigan and
> > I'm a Unix system administrator but I can see that most of our users are
> [...]
> > Our experience is that Windows machines are easier to support in large
> > numbers. We can simultaneously drop a new image on hundreds of machines
>
> I'm an admin in a group which supports a smaller number of machine's
> than Aaron's (somewhere between 500 and 1000) and I'm more in
> agreement with him. I can load many Sun's and/or HP's with jumpstart
> or Ignite-UX. It's quite easy.
>
> For smaller updates I wrote some perl scripts years ago that can do
> almost anything I want.
>
Jumpstart seems slightly easier to automate than Ghost, but a little
fiddly to set up initially. Ghost is good, but seems to need a little
more interaction. It should be easy to set up a semi-automated FTP
install for *BSD or Linux as well. The nice thing about PCs is that
you can make the vendor configure them for you :-)
You might like to look at sup, rsync or cvsup for live updates.
Sup is an old CMU package (Software Upgrade Protocol) which does a
quite good job, but it's a bit dated and isn't actively maintained.
Cvsup seems to be the successor to sup, and uses a number of lower-level
methods (including rsync) to keep the bandwidth utilisation down.
Rsync works nicely with NT as well.
> All of our desktop machines are quite similar, almost identical within
> a few classes. This does make life much easier.
>
> > difficult to manage because of the tendancy for Unix systems to be
> > configured to provide services and for machines to be kept in service much
>
> Don't do that. All common services should be provided by servers in
> locked server rooms, on UPS's and with diesel backup and mirrored
> disks. If possible fail-over is good.
>
Not always practical with geographically dispersed n-tier systems.
The closer you can get to this the better, though.
Using ssh & sup makes it *really* easy to administer remote *nix boxen,
though you could come close on NT with ssh & rsync. NT Server does
have a tendency to lock up entirely, but not especially frequently.
I'd go one-up on the mirrored disk at the data centre and aim for
enterprise storage of some sort.
A remotely-mirrored contingency site is nice, too :-)
> Then when a clent machine fails, repair/replacement is trivial.
It's really easy if you can use diskless clients or X Terminals ;-)
They seem hard to come by these days, though :-(
> > email and file service on a few large well maintained servers, you find
> > many departments attempting to support several different operating systems
> > and associated servers with only one or two staff members.
>
> I see this, and I'm not bothered, and don't try to stop it, but I
> won't provide any support (maybe a few words of advice if I'm not
> busy). If some group sets up a rogue domain, great, but they have full
> responsibility.
>
> --
> Jim Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> =================== http://www.buchanan1.net/ ==========================
> "The majority is always sane." -Larry Niven
> "Sanity is not statistical." -George Orwell
> ========================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 14:46:13 +0800
"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Todd wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > With operating systems as great as Linux and FreeBSD available for
free,
> > > why would anyone consider Windows NT Server?
> > >
> > > I can't think of a single reason why any responsible IT department
would
> > > deploy NT.
> >
> > Neither can I. We are deploying Windows 2000.
> >
> > Linux shouldn't be trying to compete with NT. Linux needs to be able to
> > compete with 2000 - which I don't believe it can do yet, if ever.
> >
> > -Todd
> >
> W2K is actually NT 5, so this is a moot point :-)
>
> Could you please list some of the reasons you selected W2K over NT4?
For workstation use:
1) Multi-language support ( *entry* and display )... most unices barely
support display, almost none support the mutli-locale entry methods. Makes
supporting multiple countries a lot easier. This feature alone made it
worth it where I work in Asia.
Server:
1) Better stability and robustness than NT. No more memory leaks.
2) Easier remote administration with terminal services.
3) Faster than NT and better SMP support.
Those are just the biggies that I could think of at the top of my head.
2000 is just all-around better than NT. So far, no compatibilitiy
problems - but then, most software we use is either designed for or
certified for use with 2000.
> I can't claim to have done any in-depth evaluation of W2K Server as yet,
> but it doesn't appear at first glance to be all that much of an
> improvement over NT 4 Server.
It is. Once you use it, you will see. Active directory alone is a huge
change - and a good one at that.
> Are there any hidden compatibility gotchas (apart from SMB and RDP)
> which are likely to break NT 4 applications?
Haven't found any yet... most NT software has already been patched if the
need existed - 2000 has been out officially for almost a year now.
-Todd
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 14:47:03 +0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > With operating systems as great as Linux and FreeBSD available for
free,
> > > why would anyone consider Windows NT Server?
> > >
> > > I can't think of a single reason why any responsible IT department
would
> > > deploy NT.
> >
> > Neither can I. We are deploying Windows 2000.
> >
> > Linux shouldn't be trying to compete with NT. Linux needs to be able to
> > compete with 2000 - which I don't believe it can do yet, if ever.
> >
> > -Todd
>
> Sure thing, Todd Needham, Microshaft employee.
Wrong again.
Sheesh... I thought you were smarter than this.
-Todd
>
>
> >
> > > --
> > > http://www.mohawksoft.com
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 06:47:40 GMT
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:935dia$8t86n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >Y'know, I ordered a system from Sam's Computers, and could never get the
> modem
> >to work very well with NT. It was annoying, and I eventually bought a
> NetCom
> >modem. Now I realize that Sam's had installed a WinModem. I had thought
> that
> >it was just a broken piece of crap.
> >
> > http://www.56k.com/reports/winmodem.shtml
> >
>
>
> You mean that winmodems won't work on windows either then ;-)
Getting US Robotics WinModems (14.4k) to work after upgrading from 95 to 98
could be a real chore. It involved having to physically remove all traces of
the modem from the registry. They supplied a program to do this that didn't
always work. The upgrade from the web boosted the speed to 33.6K and after
as many as three install attempts actually worked. Since I found myself
having to do this for at least three systems a week, I eventually wrote a
program that automated the process. Up to that point, I always had glowing
recommendations for USR products (I used DualStandards for years). I'm not
so
fond of them now.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 06:47:39 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:935ib8$5o9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:935dgi$8r59j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Foget about this, have you ever tried to maintained one of those boxes?
> It's a nightmare.
> My worst experiance was with Pacerd Bell computers.
Ohmygawd...Packard Bell!
It took some real genius to design a system, built with such junk, to
actually work (on occasion).
> It's a desktop case (horizonal, not vertical, like all other stuff today),
> and in order to do *anything* with it, you need to take the whole box
apart.
> I remember switching HD on one box where I ended up having to remove
CD-Rom,
> floppy, proccessor, RAM, every extention card the computer had and *still*
> needed to take some of the casing apart just to be able to pull the old HD
> out.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 06:47:41 GMT
> Worst of all, they *lock* you into Microsoft.
> I wonder where the idea for WinModems came?
>
A scheme to reduce hardware costs by using software to provide error
correction and data compression.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
