Linux-Advocacy Digest #903, Volume #31 Fri, 2 Feb 01 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: LOL now the BIND story hits mainstream News ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The 130MByte text file (J Sloan)
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others (Russ Lyttle)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (.)
Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (.)
Re: Storm Linux & Applixware (J Sloan)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (J Sloan)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (J Sloan)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (J Sloan)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (J Sloan)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (.)
Re: My open-source quote ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (J Sloan)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (J Sloan)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (J Sloan)
Re: The 130MByte text file (J Sloan)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Steve Mading)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LOL now the BIND story hits mainstream News
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 23:10:23 -0500
"--==<( Jeepster )>==--" wrote:
>
> Can you not go a day without swearing
It's my way of displaying my UTTER CONTEMPT for shit-head liars like you
> you stupid little boy?
^^^^^^
Care to discuss the quantum-dynamic behavior of charge carriers
inside semiconductor materials and devices?
>
> I doubt your credentials in your tagline, your attitude is too childish for
> an employer to take on.
And yet, they pay me over $100,000/year.
Why is that?
>
> Stupid boy.
Smarter than you, jackass.
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > al wrote:
> > >
> > > BIND doesn't run on Windows but Unix and it's clone Linux. If it run on
> > > Windows, it wouldn't have security holes.
> >
> >
> > No..instead, it would ***BE** a security hole....
> > just like every other fucking thing that runs ond LoseDOS is a security
> > hole,
> > because LoseDOS is a security hole in it's own right.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > "Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:959oc8$qg6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > "--== wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1142000/1142572.stm
> > > > >
> > > > > Linux - lol, dead before the general public even knew about
> it...sure,
> > > big
> > > > > in geek circles, but to joe soap? HA!
> > > >
> > > > Now i wonder.. did that article mention Linux? Nope.. it mentioned
> BIND...
> > > > "the most important program" for the Internet.
> > > >
> > > > BIND runs on Windows... maybe we should post in windows newsgropups..
> > > > "Warning! security hole found in Windows software" :-)
> > > >
> > > > Is it just me or is the quality of wintrolls decreasing rapidly?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers
> >
> >
> > --
> > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > Unix Systems Engineer
> > DNRC Minister of all I survey
> > ICQ # 3056642
> >
> >
--
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: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 04:13:44 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:47:58 +0100, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Whos the idiot? Abiword is pretty much alfa with lots of features lacking..
> >just select some features like Insert->Pagenumbers and see the result
>
> Sounds like the typical Linux application.
Abiword is not a Linux app - it's a work in progress, and
currently available for windows and other platforms, including
Linux and other Unices.
jjs
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 04:16:42 GMT
Perry Pip wrote:
>
> On 27 Jan 2001 19:13:04 -0600,
> Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > >NT4 sp6a certified WITH networking and floppy.
> >> > >
> >> >http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html
> >> > >
> >> > > This page mere says that NT can be networked, and that it can be C2
> >> > > certified. It doesn't say you can do both simultaneously.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Are you that stupid? Can I suggest a remedial english class.
> >> > here is a tip, you didn't get past the cover page did you?
> >> >
> >> > http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/library/fers/TTAP-CSC-FER-99-001.pdf
> >> >
> >>
> >> Oh yes I did. And not one page of that document refers to simultaneous
> >> networking and C2 certification. In fact, if you read the last two
> >> chapters on C2 ceritfication you see C2 specifications deal entirely
> >> with protection from those with physical access to the machine. Thus,
> >> once you connect a C2 certified machine to a network the certification
> >> is meaningless.
> >>
> >> A half a dozen people have told you this but you are obviously two dense
> >> to get it.
> >>
> >
> >Then both you and these half dozen people are wrong.
> >
>
> No, you can't read thu hype and BS, that's all. Read the actual C2
> requirements at http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/ttap/DBMS.DVR.html and
> let me know where it refers to relevant network security issues such
> as encryption, spoofing protection, packet filtering, buffer
> overflows, etc, etc. It simply doesn't.
>
> >Turn to page 159 of the document last referened, page 171 of the PDF. It was
> >the first quicky reference to networked operation I could find - there are
> >more. You'll see here it discusses logging in via the network to a domain
> >with username and passwords.
>
> The C2 requirement mentioned is only intended to protect local logins,
> and is only extended to a network as an afterthought. There is a lot
> more to securing a machine on a network and C2 addresses virtually
> none of it.
>
> >On page 145 of the document, network sockets
> >and shares are mentioned.
> >WINS is covered, as is DNS, NETLOGIN and RPC is covered - these are all
> >network functions. The operation of a PDC versus BDC versus standalone is
> >covered. Network printing is covered. Extensive coverage of network shares
> >is provided in many sections. Page 104 talks about the NTLM server component
> >and access accross a network The workstation service is covered, the network
> >browser service is cover. How much more networking would you like covered?
> >TCP and UDP in a networked environment is covered. Page 94 gives a lovely
> >diagram. Trust relationships between domains is covered starting on page
> >85 - gee, can you have multiple (netbios) domains on a single machine?
> >
>
> They don't even mention C2 in any of these parts of the document you
> reference. Nor does the actuall C2 specificification I reference refer
> to any of these networking functionallities. Thus there is no
> connection between any of this and C2.
>
> >
> >NO WHERE will you find ANYTHING in any document that says "Gee, although we
> >tested network configurations of this OS, we don't certified THAT part."
>
> And NO WHERE will you find ANYTHING that says they do!! Read the
> actual C2 specification and you'll see that C2 does not address 90% of
> the networking fucntionalities covered in your document.
>
> >Hardware is documented, as in the various machines used are cataloged but
> >that's it. C2 for NT4 is for the OS - it has nothing to do with the
> >hardware.
>
> Wrong again. Read chapter 2.2.3 of the above referenced C2 specification
> note there are hardware requirements. In chapter 2.2.4 you will see
> that it is hardware software combinations that must be certified
> together, not merely software.
>
> >Hundreds have told you that but you are too stubborn to
> >understand.
> >
>
> Hundreds?? More like only two point/click/druel morons on Usenet
> struggling to fool themselves in to thinking they are smarter than
> they really are.
>
> >I'm referring to official documents for proof - what do you have?
>
> The actual C2 specificition, dipshit. Not some peice of hype written
> to impress a manager.
>
> >Get over
> >it, NT4 is C2 certified including networking.
>
> C2 is grossly insufficient to guarantee a machine on a network is
> secure. 90% of the networking functionality in NT or any other network
> OS aren't even addressed in C2. Ignorance like yours is the reason
> that NT is by far the #1 cracked OS on the Internet today.
>
> >Please do not reply that C2
> >goes out the door when connected to a network
>
> The C2 specification does not address relevent network security
> issues, such as encryption, spoofing protection, packet filtering,
> buffer overflows, etc, etc. Thus it's certification is not sufficient
> to secure a networked machine.
>
> >or that it's tied to
> >hardware -
>
> Read the actual C2 specification, dipshit.
>
> >it will only document your ignorance of the rating and what it
> >means.
>
> ROFLOL!!!
I think you can do NT network and still be C2, if the network is
confined to an access controlled area and if only NT machines are on the
system. And if everyone who can log in is entitled access to everything.
And if only one machine has a floppy and it is locked in a special room
accessable only by a short list of people.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:21:26 +1300
> There are very good 3rd party implementations of Quotas. He never said that
> they had to be built into the OS, he just said NT 4.0 doesn't have quotas,
> which is a lie. Win2K has them built in, that's the only difference.
If the OS comes with code for supporting a feature, but no means of
controlling or initiating that feature, you may as well claim the OS does
not have that feature.
If you purchase/download software that lets you use quotas, it is, from
the users point of view, a feature of that software package. Quotas
cannot be used without it, therefore it provides the quotas.
The bigger question is why would MS bother to write so much code, and
then not provide any access to it except through third parties? The
third parties, I imagine, pay for the privilege to be ABLE to develop
quota software, so there's a little incentive. Do they have to sign
stupid agreements that involve a portion of sales and firstborn sons
being sent regularly to MS?
Then there's the common trend we see with MS too... buy out/muscle out
the little guy... do they sign these poor fuckers up, let them do the
hard work, then out-business them and reap the rewards? Is it because
they're actually too lame to write their own quota software, and need to
find a patsy? What's the deal?
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here!
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 04:27:36 GMT
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:953q2q$osj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Dear Charlie,
>
> > What really cracks me up is people like this dipshit Adam Warner,
> > run up here and post a message from something **THEY READ** of
> > the microsoft.com site, pretend like it's the truth before
> > even investigating it, and start spreading it around the worlds
> > internet highways as if it were the *FACTS*.
>
> I hope an apology will be quickly forthcoming. I am never been treated so
> disgustingly.
>
Yes, it's all true and linux is giving up:
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0101/linux_quit.shtml
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 23:31:04 -0500
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Giuliano Colla
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Mon, 29 Jan 2001 01:27:15 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >>
> >> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:952c93$hk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> > >>> Key word here is "good"
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>When that's the keyword, MS crap falls out of the picture.
> >> >
> >> > > Tell that to the 95 percent of the world that is using MS.
> >> >
> >> > Oh. Its the best because everyone uses it.
> >> >
> >> > Thats some argument youve got there.
> >>
> >> The road less traveled is less traveled for a reason genius.
> >
> >The reason is called "monopolization". And its illegal.
>
> Not sure about monopolization being illegal per se. It's abuse
> of monopoly power that is illegal, as I understand it; Microsoft
> is damned good at abuse. :-)
In Microsoft's case, they also committed illegal acts (obstruction
of trade) to GAIN monopoly status as well.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 4d:04h:53m actually running Linux.
> The EAC doesn't exist, but they're still watching you.
--
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: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:36:58 +1300
> As far as defacements, you'll be glad to know that Linux goes neck
> and neck with NT/IIS and often outdoes NT by quite a long shot.
And you got this information from...? The only link I saw was
attrition.org, and the numbers quite clearly paint the opposite picture.
Can you not read the graphs, or do you not consider them accurate?
> Although attrition (not accidentally) groups NT with Win2K which
> increases the numbers artificially, Linux still beats everyone.
> If you had a breakdown of NT and 2K and Linux, 2K would be the
> smallest by far, by a quarter of NT and Linux, I would say.
It's not artificial as long as they're counting every version of apache
and linux together under 'linux'. If they were splitting up linux into
Linux 2.0, Linux 2.2 and Linux 2.4, I would agree with you.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Storm Linux & Applixware
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 04:38:37 GMT
"." wrote:
> > What rc files are those, I'd like to have a look.
>
> Pull the comments out of the startup stuff; youll see...:)
Will do -
> Also, whats with mounting every possible filesystem and FSCKing when booting
> into single user? Thats terrible.
hmm - different strokes I guess -
OTOH if it has a serious fsck problem it brings up
a root prompt after mounting only '/' (read only) -
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 04:39:44 GMT
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> J Sloan wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're up to, but you are indeed on
> > a mission to fabricate difficulties, so as to "counter
> > linux advocacy".
> >
> Also he stated a few days ago that he can't install several things
> because of dependency-problems.
Odd that he didn't just install the required
dependencies and carry on...
>
> Sounds very fishy.
Yes, almost flat fishy!
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 04:41:33 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The linux that IBM, HP and Dell are excited about doubltess
> > bears no resemblance to the miserable specimen you have
> > somehow created, if indeed it does exist.
>
> Ah, so this is all a figment of my imagination is it? So you can pretend
> it doesn't exist? Is that it?
>
> > Your shenanigans do indicate that you are indeed "on
> > a mission to counter linux advocacy"...
>
> My mission, if I had one, was to counter some of the exagerations made
> about Linux and Windows. Can I help it if one leaps into my lap?
hehe - I'm trying to visualize all this - here, you spend
all this time futzing around to create a 130 MB file just
for the purposes of abusing some editors, and you call
that "leaping into your lap"....
too funny -
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 04:46:11 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Some Mandrake versions had a beta version of KDE. Some didn't. I've
> never been able to confirm/deny what version I had.
Oh, it's pretty dang straightforward, like mandrake 101:
rpm -qa | grep kde
> So I installed the
> updates from Mandrake that should take me to a final version of KDE 2.0.
> Nothing was updated, so I conclude I had the right one.
kde 2 had not been released at the time mandrake 7
came out - ergo it was a pre release beta version.
> Now what was it some Linux Advocate said in reference to Windows...
>
> "No application should be able to crash a system"...
>
> How about "hang" a system?
Can you tell the difference between memory starvation
and a hung system?
> Shouldn't the system be able to gracefully handle this, by failing the
> application? Hmm? If Windows can handle it, why can't Linux?
It no doubt could, just not your miserable little box
;-)
> > Linux is indeed much more stable than windows - but
> > I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for your system Pete -
>
> But this is a standard Linux Mandrake 7.2 system!
Obviously not - nothing you've said about it has
made any sense to other mandrake users, who
seem fairly happy.
> ...it's a standard installation! So, carry on with the excuses, pretend
> the problem doesn't exist and away we go!
Clearly, it's no standard installation - this one was
specially horked up by the guy who is on a misson
to counter linux advocacy....
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 04:49:25 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > Is it true that windows 2000 finally got filesystem quotas
> > > > somewhat similar to what Linux has had for years?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > > Is it true that Linux finally got the SMP support that NT had for years?
> >
> > Linux has had smp support since version 1.1.31.
> >
> > That was ~1995.
>
> Very poor SMP at that.
But it worked, and unlike windows, it kept getting better!
> It didn't get half-way respectable SMP until 2001.
Didn't they smoke windows nt in 4-way specweb
back in the summer of 2000? well, smoking windows
was no big deal, they also smoked aix, hp-ux and DEC
tru-64 unix. I'd say that's far better than respectable,
and that was last year.
Face it chad, you're cornered and you're stuttering.
jjs
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:51:40 +1300
In article <a6qe6.5102$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Here's the link:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/reviews/dotcoms.asp
>
> Yes, I know that's a microsoft site...but the company that wrote it is
> Aberdeen...and I saw it in a legitimate press clipping before. I just can't
> seem to find any other link to it....
>
> Here's another: http://www.aberdeen.com/ab%5Fabstracts/1999/11/11991588.htm
>
> Not that these are pro-Microsoft clippings, as requested.
I assume that's meant to be 'note' on the last line ;)
The only interesting thing I see in this article (I have not read the
whole thing... it's huge, and I do have other obligations! I satisfied
myself with the exec summary and a quick skim to the bottom) is that they
comment on the stability of NT and 2K based on their findings with
successful internet sites who run server farms.
The continuity of a server farm is no indication of the OS's reliability.
If I had an OS/Web server that crashed every thirtieth HTTP request, I
could still keep a farm of the bastards running 24x7.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My open-source quote
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 23:51:31 -0500
Dan Hinojosa wrote:
>
> "Open source is like a bicycle without a seat. Sure it works like other
> bicycles, but the comfort using it is not there."
ignoramus.
>
> --Dan Hinojosa, Java Developer
--
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: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 04:51:52 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No, your endless woes and "stepping on the rake and
> > whacking yourself in the forehead" type of adventures
> > pretty much guarantee that this is no normal Linux
> > system. Mandrake would be out of business is it
> > were anything like the sad affair you have been
> > complaining about....
>
> So I'm making this all up then? So, you can ignore all these problems,
> is that it?
Woe to the poor guy who takes your problems
seriously and wastes his time trying to help. You
already burned us that way, remember?
As you admitted, you aren't looking for answers,
you are just playing the class clown -
> Ah, but I wish it were true.
I doubt that.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 04:53:20 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If it's not there, that means you said "no" to telnetd,
> > and most likely a lot of other things during the install.
> > It is possible to install a "workstation" with no services
> > whatsoever, as you likely did.
>
> I said yes to telnet, I made sure of that. Still not there.
If you said yes to telnet, and allowed the installation
to complete successfully, then telnet is there, but
you may have inadvertently disabled it, or purposely
disabled it for all we know, so as to "counter linux
advocacy".
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 04:57:34 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > > The SMP design still (in 2.4) lacks behind most other
> > > SMP implementations out there.
> >
> > Such as?
>
> NT 4.0, Windows 2000, most higher grade Unixes such as Solaris and
> AIX, and several others. Basically, the big boys.
You've just proved my point.
First of all, don't include your pc operating system
in the same sentence as Unix, it just makes you
look silly.
Secondly, since Linux smoked all of them in specweb
99 on 8-way, by what criteria do you suppose that the
Linux SMP implementation isn't the best of the lot?
Just because "chad says it's so" doesn't make it so.
Evidence please, not silly opinions!
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 04:59:49 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If they have a Linux or other Unix system, a dumb terminal
> > can be hooked up to a spare serial port.
>
> What did I say? I said "they have one PC and no network access". They
> don't have a spare dumb terminal. Hint: this is yer typical home user.
Nope, you made it very clear that you are an experienced
computer professional, have a home network, and are
currently attempting to find ways to beat up on your poor
broken misconfigured mandrake box.
"typical home user", indeed.
jjs
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 2 Feb 2001 04:57:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:95cmpo$rj6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:> : news:95781i$rus$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> :>
:> :> Ad Hominem fallacy: the above rant has nothing to do whatsoever
:> :> with the point I brought up - that the Mindcraft study was funded
:> :> *BY* one of the parties it was judging, and thus it does you no
:> :> good to defend it by saying, "But all other studies are funded by
:> :> others too."
:>
:> : So basically, you're attempting to take on the entire scientific
:> : community and the basis for every reasearch study going on in the
:> : western world, just because you can't accept that Linux just doesn't
:> : perform as well as other OSen?
:>
:> No, liar. Read my post.
: Um, I did. You're basically saying that simply because Party A funds
: Party B's research, that somehow the results are ALWAYS going to be
: tainted,
Thanks for proving you didn't read my post (or you are a liar). I
was quite specific that an additional condition is that Party B's
reasearch is judging Party A's product. You keep trying to twist this
into me claiming that ANY time the research is funded that there is
taint, and that is NOT my point, and this is the FOURTH time I've
said so, so stop this senseless lying.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
