Linux-Advocacy Digest #374, Volume #32 Wed, 21 Feb 01 10:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Peter Hayes)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Peter da Silva)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant ("dev null")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Chad Myers")
Re: Who said NT was stable ! (Benjamin Stocker)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Into the abyss... (Matthias Warkus)
Where is suse 7.1? (#KUNDAN KUMAR#)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (John Jensen)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Gregory L. Hansen)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Gregory L. Hansen)
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American Activities
Committee (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("Sam Morris")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:26:51 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 19:56:21 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Tim Hanson wrote:
<...>
> > Alas, the battleships are no longer here. All that's left are the Carl
>
> I believe that two of them have not been decommissioned yet...just
> put back into the mothball fleet.
>
>
> > Vinson, Independence, and Ranger here, and the Abraham Lincoln in
> > Everett. We'll just have to struggle through with air strikes.
> >
>
> It's too bad. Naval Artillery is a relatively cheap way to support
> any Marines who need to establish a beachhead.
Not as bad as the British Royal Navy, where the gunners are required to
shout "BANG" on training exercises due to lack of real shells.
Peter
--
In the 19th century surveyors measured the height of Everest
from 500 miles away in India.
This cannot be repeated today. Everest is no longer visible from
the survey location due to increased atmospheric pollution.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 21 Feb 2001 13:30:22 GMT
In article <hRFk6.46848$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:96v75r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <f8Ek6.46570$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I never claimed I did. I just want someone to answer for why there
> > > are so many vulnerabilities in SSH. I never claimed I was an expert,
> > > I was merely citing other experts.
> > And when the situation was explained you apologised for the misunderstanding
> > and went on to other things, right?
> Things were not explained.
That doesn't happen to be true. Three vulnerabilities were identified.
Two of them were determined to be due to bugs in early attempts to fix
the first vulnerability... sites that had installed those versions are
likely to be up to date since only people monitoring security issues
already would know about them. That leaves the original problem, which
has been fixed for months, even in SSH1 servers.
Methods of attacking SSH through this vulnerability were discussed. It
was pointed out that to exploit it you would need to be on the same LAN
as the server... you couldn't sustain the necessary connection rate over
a WAN link... and you would probably take down the server in the attempt
which would make the key you gained useless. And OpenSSH was never vulnerable
because it doesn't allow massively repeated connection attempts.
So we're talking about an obscure theoretical vulnerability, one which it
is not clear could ever be used even under ideal circumstances, and which
has never been a problem for the implementation of SSH in question.
This has all been pointed out, at length, and in more detail than I've gone
into here. Your apology to Theo would be appreciated.
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:33:21 GMT
"Klaus-Georg Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > However, security products like firewalls, intrusion detectors and SSH,
> > for example, are usually trusted products which are allowed ports in
> > the firewall or are placed in the DMZ or on the Internet itself without
> > any shielding.
>
> Incidentally if you are speaking about firewalls and DMZ: In all sites
> I have worked so far, if you wanted to login to a computer in the DMZ
> coming from either inside or outside, it had to go through a ssh
> connection.
A "fundamentally flawed" ssh connection.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "dev null" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:51:57 -0500
> Sales are irrelevant. Windows is irrelevant. Chad is irrelevant. You
*will*
> be assimilated.
Meet the new borgs, same as the old borgs.
--scuse, but when finish masticating Torvald's cookies, please let us know.
---
Airhead R. Klueless
Human garbage wrapped in skin
Moron Minister of all I foul
ICQ # 666
H: "I am stupid people"
I: "I am a COMMUNIST ***hole"
J: My mother is an old hag who has hit the wall....
A: I am a fool mocked by wise men.
B: I spew out nonsense as a method of sidetracking discussions which are
headed in a
direction that I don't like.
C: Everyone should really killfile me.
D: I travel from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: I am not worthy of the time to compose a response until
my behavior improves.
F: I have pictures of Jimmy Baker committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: I am a retard.
---
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:39:14 GMT
"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Theo de Raadt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Said Charlie Ebert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 19 Feb 2001
> > > > [...]
> > > > >What is *THIS* fucking bullcrap about Chad?
> > > > >
> > > > >Why?
> > > >
> > > > Because he is a troll who, for reasons mysterious to the rest of us,
> > > > finds validation in being replied to, regardless of what the reply is or
> > > > what things he has to say, be they facts, inflammatory opinions,
> > > > misrepresentations, or outright lies, in order to get it.
> > >
> > > No no no.
> > >
> > > He's not a troll. He's a net-kook.
> >
> > More insults and more avoidance of facts from Theo de Raadt.
> >
> > Thank god I don't use any of your software. I value quality and security.
> >
> > -Chad
>
>
> Please enlighten us Chad.
>
> What do you regard as secure??
>
> ... and why, pray tell?
Well, preferrably software that doesn't have many exploits, or at least
that doesn't have several exploits being discovered every month.
I would hope that it would be well-written enough that only a few
vulnerabilities were found, or none at all (but that's impossible).
Secondly, when vulnerabilities are found, there shouldn't be a question
about whether the patches are installed. If anyone is using the product,
the product should be smart enough to warn when updates are available.
Perhaps even shut down if updates are found to prevent possible
exploitation.
SSH1 is "fundamentally flawed" which means it wasn't designed properly
in the first place. SSH2 is a better attempt, but as we saw, doesn't
seem to be much better as there are still vulnerabilities rolling in.
There doesn't seem to be a concerted effort to get everyone off of
SSH1 even though the people who know, know that SSH1 has many issues
and is not a secure product.
Why do the powers that be idly sit by and let it happen? That
greatly concerns me. Whats more, some of the people involved in the
making of the product don't seem to want to address these concerns
and seem content to merely insult the people who bring them forward.
Extremely immature. I don't want immature people developing my
security software. I want people developing my security software
taking allegations of insecurity seriously and doing all the can
to squash those feelings. It seems the SSH community is doing nothing.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Benjamin Stocker)
Subject: Re: Who said NT was stable !
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:57:58 GMT
On 21 Feb 2001 06:15:58 -0600, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Benjamin Stocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I worked with Windows NT Server and Workstation for more than 2 years.
>> I had many troubles and severe problems: The systems were slow, emails
>> disappeared in exchange, needed to reboot the webserver all the time, etc.
>
>Nah, you just have to hire a competent NT admin, that's all.
If you paint a dental stick with new color, it's still the same: It breaks
apart as soon as you bend it too hard. Or in other words: This is not a
question about competence. Even the best admin can't make a poorly designed
system better.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:38:03 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 20 Feb 2001 23:52:24 GMT...
...and Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't understand your defense of EBCDIC on mulitnational
> grounds. It's even worse than ASCII in that regard.
I did not defend EBCDIC.
You did not read my posting.
mawa
--
> Aber sonst geht es dir noch gut, oder? X11 ist gegenueber dem NICHT
> NETZWERKFAEHIGEN WINDOWS-ANSATZ die bei weitem ueberlegene Technik.
Soetwas braucht eh keiner. Wer hat schon mehrere Rechner vernetzt.
-- Jost Boekemeier
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Into the abyss...
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:51:43 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:39:09 -0500...
...and Masha Ku'Inanna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I get frustrated with linux and unix easily. they rely on archaic text
> commands
What's archaic about those commands?
> and generally are not the easiest environements to work on.
> Man-pages remind me of a computer-geek version of Army Technical Manuals.
This is intended. Manual pages are reference material, not tutorials.
They're not targeted at dummies. If to you everyone who isn't a dummie
is a computer-geek... well, that'd be a pretty pathetic opinion.
> The different linux distros are not always compatible with each other, yet
> they offer some handholding for a Windows escapee. But true to their UNIX
> roots, there is still the inevitable command prompt.
Of course. Why should it be abandoned?
> [....] Windows does a great job at assuming it is smarter
> than the user. UNIX does exactly what you tell it. Windows does what it
> thinks you wanted it to do. You give it a general idea of what you want it
> to do, and it will fill in the rest, to the best of its ability, to carry
> out the task you want done. UNIX is the exact opposite. It assumes that the
> OS is far dumber than you will ever be, and in order for you to get it to do
> exactly what you want, you TELL it to do exactly what you want.
This is, by the way, also the difference between good computer books
(O'Reilly is a prime example) and the usual tripe: A Nutshell Handbook
(just for example) will give you all kinds of information on a
problem, but it'll be a bit daunting initially just to sort out what
you need to do. The pretty coloured step-by-step guides you can find
by the mile in any computer book department will tell you *exactly*
what to do, but only for a very limited range of common tasks.
The differences between the Windows and Unix philosophies show up in
lots of areas. You could even compare them with the classical and
romantical attitudes described in "Zen and The Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance".
> Windows, on the other hand, is the product of a brilliant marketting
> department who managed to completely convince the world that all you have to
> do is click, and "it just works." The workings of a computer can be so
> effectively shielded from the average user, and the media is so saturated
> with the latest "industry buzzwords"
This is one very important point!
> I'd rather be frustrated knowing that it was MY screw up that keeps my
> computer from doing what I wanted than pissed because my computer refused to
> do what I told it to do.
My opinion, too.
mawa
--
beauty drip, n.:
The tear that rolls out of your eye during the manly combat
against skin impurities on your nose (because damn, that hurts!).
------------------------------
From: #KUNDAN KUMAR# <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Where is suse 7.1?
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:52:02 +0800
Suse 7.1 was to be released on feb 12. Still now the website says, it
will be available from mid-february? When is it going to be released?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 21 Feb 2001 14:24:30 GMT
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:39:14 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>Well, preferrably software that doesn't have many exploits, or at least
>that doesn't have several exploits being discovered every month.
ssh does *NOT* have several exploits discovered every month. Nice try.
>I would hope that it would be well-written enough that only a few
>vulnerabilities were found, or none at all (but that's impossible).
Then no doubt you'll stop using MS software ...
>Secondly, when vulnerabilities are found, there shouldn't be a question
>about whether the patches are installed. If anyone is using the product,
>the product should be smart enough to warn when updates are available.
>Perhaps even shut down if updates are found to prevent possible
>exploitation.
This is a nice idea, but it also creates problems, possibly more than it
causes. How do you do this reliably ? Should the product really shut
down ? Seems somewhat inconvenient.
>SSH1 is "fundamentally flawed" which means it wasn't designed properly
>in the first place.
Let's get things into perspective here. "fundamentally flawed" in what
sense ? Is it less "fundamentally flawed" for example than the model
NT uses for authentication ? From what Jeremy Allison has said, it
appears SMB has more "fundamental flaws" than you can poke a stick at.
The "fundamentally flawed" comment means
that there are certain issues that are raised by the design of the
product. It does not in any way imply that attacks against the product
are easy.
>There doesn't seem to be a concerted effort to get everyone off of
>SSH1 even though the people who know, know that SSH1 has many issues
>and is not a secure product.
Even ssh1 is considerably more than telnet. THey're still working at
getting everyone off telnet ! Once everyone is off telnet, it might
be appropriate to think about making sure everyone is off older ssh
versions.
>greatly concerns me. Whats more, some of the people involved in the
>making of the product don't seem to want to address these concerns
>and seem content to merely insult the people who bring them forward.
You are not bringing the concerns forth in good faith.
>Extremely immature. I don't want immature people developing my
>security software. I want people developing my security software
>taking allegations of insecurity seriously and doing all the can
>to squash those feelings. It seems the SSH community is doing nothing.
Bash De Raadt all you like, however I have yet to see anyone who takes
security as seriously as he and the other OpenBSD developers.
Your comments would not look so silly if it weren't for the fact that
you are implicity proposing Microsoft's products as a "security solution".
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 21 Feb 2001 14:28:38 GMT
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:33:21 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>A "fundamentally flawed" ssh connection.
I have a whole lot of "fundamentally flawed" ssh servers.
If you want to try breaking in, I can give you the address
of one of them.
Again, all "fundamentally flawed" means is that it does not
have safeguards for certain types of attacks built into the
protocol. Using this definition, most protocols are "fundamentally
flawed", because most of them are not designed with security
as a priority.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,demon.local
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 21 Feb 2001 14:28:03 GMT
Which one of you is the Microsoft mole who turned this into a gun-control
thread? Clever ploy, that.
John
--
33° 38' 50N 117° 56' 32W
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 21 Feb 2001 14:36:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ziya Oz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>
>>> No, I'm thinking of "free" software, as I described it. It's the GPL zealots
>>> who pollute the language with their double speak. Why should we let them
>>> decide what "free" is?
>>
>> What's not "free" about GPL software?
>
>If I put a piece of code on a server for download so that anyone could do
>whatever the heck they want with it, without any restrictions or license
>agreements whatsoever, that would be "free" code. GPL isn't free.
>
>> When people argue about this sort of thing, they're usually upset that
>> they're not "free" to put GPL code into their own commercial software,
>> which isn't free. You're not free to restrict access to GPL software, but
>> I don't see how that makes it less "free" in the sense of everyone being
>> able to get it for nothing.
>
>This none sense about the code not being "free" unless protected by GPL is
>just that: none sense. I give the code away free. If somebody incorporates
>it into a proprietary app later, so what? That's their business. My code is
>still free out there, for anyone to use.
You're just upset because you can't make unfree software with it.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 21 Feb 2001 14:37:35 GMT
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:18:20 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>Chad, you are really just a piece of shit. I am sure your mother is very
>ashamed of you, always wringing her hands and asking herself at what
>point things startet to go wrong.
I'd say losing that bet with god was a bad start ...
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 21 Feb 2001 14:40:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
J.B Moreno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gregory L. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>-snip scenario for GPL either preventing a project or forcing it to be
>developed differently-
>> It makes as much sense to complain about GPL for tanking project 2 as it
>> does to complain about the guy that didn't produce any code for project
>> 2's failure.
>
>Well that makes a helluva lot of sense -- bascially what you are saying
>is don't complain for any reason.
>
>Either it does what you want at a price you consider acceptable or it
>doesn't, if it does then fine, if it doesn't then you have no room to
>complain because the other party didn't have to develop it at all.
>
>This then applies to everything and there's no complaining about
>anything. Thanks for solving that problem.
I'm saying the person that originally decided to GPL his software owes
nothing to you, don't pretend he does. Project 2 doesn't tank "because"
of GPL, it tanks because the author is unwilling to put forth the effort
to complete it.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Activities Committee
Date: 21 Feb 2001 14:42:18 GMT
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:53:56 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>You don't know what my convictions are, since I haven't stated them. Your
>assumption that I think linux should be boycotted because of human rights is
>wrong. I don't think that. I do think, that if you're going to boycott or
>criticize MS for ethics, you should also look at how ethical those involved
>in the creation of Linux are as well.
The difference is that you can use Linux without paying any of the creators.
If there are Linux companies you have a problem with, you obviously shouldn't
buy from them. But the fact that you don't like one of the authors is not a
terribly good reason not to buy Linux, because you are not bankrolling
their "unethical" actions.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 21 Feb 2001 14:44:45 GMT
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:51:49 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>Gerry wrote:
>I have killfiled him, I will not see his direct posts any more,
>and what I see of his crap (even Chad Myers is not as bad) I will
>see in replies from others. This guy`s behaviour is just shitty.
>I did a count of his posts on my news-server. Then I startet a count
>of his actual content, that is, not quotet lines and not the sig, just the
>lines he wrote. It is below 2 percent! 98% of A R Kulkis posts consist
>of quotings and signature.
Helpful hint: if you killfile by using the "references" header, you don't
even have to see the followups.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 21 Feb 2001 14:46:22 GMT
On 21 Feb 2001 09:48:06 GMT, Nick Condon wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>ZnU wrote:
>>> It's annoying to scroll through, and my newsreader doesn't recognize it
>>> as a .sig due to excessive length, so I have to snip it out manually in
>>> replies.
>>
>>Here's a clue...when you see this:
>>
>>"Aaron R. Kulkis
>> Unix Systems Engineer"
>>
>>stop reading.
>
>LOL! Good advice.
Better advice: stop reading when you see
From: Aaron Kulkis
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:53:47 -0000
> > > > > No...they are not "petty attacks". They are accurate
> > > > > analyses of the various goofballs named therein.
> > > >
> > > > Great. Why do you think anyone cares?
> > >
> > > Would you like to see the bandwidth of this newsgroup
DOUBLE
> > due to flame fests?
> >
> > I bet it would HALVE if you removed all the crap from your
.sig.
>
> Would you like to see ALL of the below-mentioned in-duh-viduals
> starting flamewars here?
How does your preposterous .sig stop that happening? Meanwhile
you haven't justified your petty attacks.
> Didn't think so.
--
Cheers,
Sam
"All your base are belong to us" - Cats
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:01:06 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:37:29 -0500, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >How does Windows/Linux/StudlyOS prevent your apps from crashing? When
> >the app crashes, you lose the same amount of work whether or not the OS
> >goes down too.
>
> A properly working OS will prevent the crashing app from corrupting the
> rest of the system.
So some versions/distributions of Linux are not a properly working OS.
Lars T.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
