Linux-Advocacy Digest #428, Volume #32 Fri, 23 Feb 01 10:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: How much do you *NEED*? ("Karel Jansens")
Re: Interesting Google Facts! ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: Is innovation a blessing? (was Interesting article) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Maximum Linux Magazine Is Going Out Of Business Ha Ha Ha ("Osugi Sakae")
Re: State of linux distros (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: The Windows guy. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant ("Chad Myers")
Re: Interesting Google Facts! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (chrisv)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American ("Donal K.
Fellows")
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (chrisv)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Seán Ó
Donnchadha")
Re: Maximum Linux Magazine Is Going Out Of Business Ha Ha Ha ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: "Linux Usage Linked to AMD Damage" - MSN R&D Division Customer Alert
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How much do you *NEED*?
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:23:47 -0100
In article <973tfe$eqg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Angel Iglesias"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So with Microsoft software you pay _twice_.
>
> It depends on how complex are you requirements.
>
Hey, _you_ claimed linux needs IT fees to keep it running. If that is
true for linux, it is true square for Windows.
If my linux requirements aren't complex, I won't need an IT department.
>> Unstable drivers will freeze anything. What kind of argument is that?
>> At least with linux, you can choose to leave out unstable drivers
>
> Just answering to an argument like this with another equal.
>
You mentioned "kernel instable drivers", implying that they are compiled
into the kernel. This would mean that Windows has instable drivers in the
kernel as well (although in windows they would probably be called DLLs or
APIs or whatever), hence:
>> How do I recompile Windows?
>
> What kind of question is this ? Why should I want to ? Do you think
> that by compiling your kernel unstable drivers switch onto stable ones ?
>
If I were to discover that my linux distro was compiled with an instable
driver in the kernel, I can always take it apart and fix it. Recompiling
a linux kernel is not exactly rocket science and anyone who can read
should be able to do it.
I therefore repeat my question to you: How do I remove the instable bits
from Windows' kernel?
>> Only if you insist on tinkering. A properly configured linux system for
>> business use hardly needs any updating at all. Heck, it doesn't even
>> need reboots.
>
> It DOES need reboots (I assure you), obviously much more less that
> Windows; anyway, a properly configured Windows is the argument a
> Winvocate would tell you ...
>
I reboot my linux system only for tinkering. A friend of mine does not
like tinkering, and he hasn't rebooted since he had linux installed, some
six months ago.
A "properly configured Windows system" _will_ decay until a reboot is
necessary; heck, even Microsoft themselves admit that publicly. Granted,
some Windows versions decay more slowly than others, but they all get
ripe eventually.
>> It _does_ mean something if a badly behaving application can take the
>> entire computer down.
>
> Outlook virii under NT/2000 don't use to do that if properly
> configured
> system.
>
Are you sure?
>> Viri, troyans and worms are a risc to any computer; at least with
>> linux, they only affect the careless/dumb/gullible user and not the
>> rest of the system.
>
> The same for a well set up Windows.
>
Hey, it's your ass if you choose to believe that.
>> And we can't stop laughing with all the dumb idiots who _still_ pretend
>> that their Windows is stable hehehe :-)
>
> I do not pretend Windows is stable. I pretend is not as unstable as
> it is usually said in here ... and keep on laughing about a lot of
> things
> ...
>
"Not as unstable" is eerily reminiscent of "a little bit pregnant".
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================
"Go go gadget linux." Zoomm!
==============================
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Interesting Google Facts!
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:24:25 +0000
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Do a search on "Windows" - You see 24,900,000 references.
How are you filtering out non-computer uses of the term?
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I could even declare myself a religion, if that'd help.
-- Mark Loy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:19:16 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>: Actually, this works for EBCDIC also since the digits are contiguous -
>>: 0xf0 - 0xf9. Still, I wouldn't recommend this method since it does make
>>: assumptions on the representation of characters.
>>
>> You would prefer an if/else ladder checking each and every character
>> one at a time? Ick.
>
> Why use if/else? A table lookup is the obvious way to do it. I once took
> over some sw that had to translate from ita2 to ita5. The programmer had
> used if/elsif/... to do it! I presume he was paid by lines of code. :-)
In general, you need to be very careful with table-based translation
mechanisms to make sure that you can't access anywhere else than the
table in the process. Sometimes (such as when working with EBCDIC or
ASCII) this isn't a problem as you only need at most 256 entries[*],
but more generally speaking it is a real recipe for trouble.
I've seen too much broken software... :^(
Donal.
[* Assuming you've dealt with signs properly... ]
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I could even declare myself a religion, if that'd help.
-- Mark Loy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is innovation a blessing? (was Interesting article)
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:34:54 GMT
Emery Lapinski wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >What not everybody knows is where the standard rail gauge comes from.
> >The modern railways gauge comes from mine rails, which where used with
> >horse or donkey driven carts, and was therefore the standard cart wheels
> >gauge.
>
> Sorry, your story is an urban legend:
>
> http://www.urbanlegends.com/misc/railroad_gauge.html
>
> "That's the great thing about standards... there's so many to choose from."
For some unfathomable reasons (my ISP, the remote server,
who knows?), I've been unable to connect to the urban
legends site for some time, so I've been unable to check.
Now finally I've read the article, and I'm not convinced at
all.
The main point is "the Romans kept their roads smooth",
which I may testify being absolutely untrue.
At least city roads (and most cities started as military
garrisons, and had military garrisons until the Roman Empire
lasted) were heavily carved by carriage wheels. Remnants of
those roads are still visible in many places, my hometown
included, and deep carriage "rails" are clearly visible,
making it impractical for any carriage or cart to have a
different gauge.
Moreover, archeological sites such as Ostia (the main harbor
of Rome) and Pompei (kept intact by the Vesuvius vulcan
eruption in year 79 or so) show not only deep carriage
"rails" in their roads, but also pedestrian crossings. Roman
sidewalks used to be very high (3 feet or so) and crossing a
road would have been a challenge, if appropriate high stones
were not put in place, leaving some gaps for carriage wheels
and for horses paws. Of course gaps were significantly wider
than wheels, but apparently a standard had been established,
because you may see the wheel grooves exactly in the middle
of the gap. I can't swear that Roman gauge is exactly the
same used thereafter, but just looking at the grooves, and
at a normal railway the similarity is striking. Given the
very limited knowledge of the author on the subject, I don't
believe his opinion being more founded than mine.
--
Giuliano Colla
Before activating the tongue, make sure that the brain is
connected (anonymous)
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:34:47 +0000
>> Correct. For some reason, best known to the GIMP developers, it ships
>> with many different printer drivers.
>
> So there are one set of drivers for CUPS and one set for The Gimp...
> any
Incorrect. CUPS does not have any drivers. It uses GS.
> more applications that ship with drivers for printers? Does any of this
> sound _wrong_ to anyone?
Depends what you consider wrong, but I don't bother with the gimp drivers.
-ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Maximum Linux Magazine Is Going Out Of Business Ha Ha Ha
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:37:06 +0900
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Wiley Post"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The thiefs at Maximum Linux magazine stole my 30.00 subscription fee
> almost a year ago. They never sent me any magazines and now they are
> closing down. Good!!!
I second that. I subscribed because it looked like it was aimed at a
newbie like me (Linux Journal is high quality but a bit over my head).
Fschers haven't sent me a single issue yet. It is refund time.
--
Osugi "I now have a lawyer" Sakae
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:18:49 +0100
Reefer wrote:
>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Are you on dope?
> > I do have a dual Pentium 200 here around with 64MB ECC-RAM.
>
> Think u are...im talking about a SINGEL proc machine, u have a DUAL...spot
> the difference!
>
>
If you think that a dual Pentium 200 machine is faster than, say a 300MHz
Celeron, you are quite wrong. At best they are on a par, mostly the Celeron
would be faster.
If you want to tell us that NT4 runs like shit on a dual machine, you are
right. It has VERY crappy smp features, even on a dual 500 PIII here it
feels really slow. That machine now also runs linux, X-windows is lots
faster than windows-windows.
Peter
--
The sticker on the side of the box said "Supported Platforms: Win 95,
Win NT 4.0 or better", so clearly Linux was a supported platform.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 23 Feb 2001 13:55:54 GMT
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:46:03 +0000, Edward Rosten wrote:
>>>pipes can solve that problem if multitasking is used. They can not if
>>>single tasking is used. Therefore single tasking pipes have only a
>>>subset of the functionality of mltitasking. Therefore in order to solve
>>>all computations that pipes are able to solve, multitasking is required.
>>
>> This does not imply that pipes require multitasking. It merely shows
>> that a pipe with multitasking has more functionality than a pipe without
>> multitasking. If you're using shell syntax and sending the input of one
>> job to the output of another as a definition, then even dos pipes
>> satisfy the definition.
>
>[in th context of shell piping]
>
>No it doesn't because the emulation of pipes proveides a subset of the
>functionality,
> so they are not pipes. You could say a 286 was a pentium
>because it provides a subset of the functionality, but that is false. So
>it is false that DOS pipes are UNIX pipes. Since what UNIX has is pipes,
>what dos has can not be pipes.
Nonsense.
One could use precisely the same logic to prove that a VW Beetle is not
a car. Here goes --
Fact: A VW Beetle cannot travel at more than 200mph
Fact: A Lambourghini Countach (spelling?) can travel at more than 200mph
Therefore, a VW Beetle does not enjoy all the functionality available in
a car, it only provides a subset of the said functionality.
Therefore, a VW Beetle is not a car.
The problem with this argument of course is that I am erroneously using
a particular implementation of "car" to define the term, and then confusing
properties of that implementation with what a car is. While the argument
is entirely consistent with the notion that a car be defined by
Lambourghini's implementation, it is a blatantly absurd definition.
More on the subject of computers, the fact that the C++ compiler Visual
C++ supports MFC does not mean that anything that doesn't support MFC
is not a C++ compiler (even though it doesn't support all the functionality
that VC++ does). The reason again, is that C++ is not defined
by an implementation.
Likewise, instead of using a reasonable definition of pipes, you are
mistakenly confusing a particular implementation and application with
what pipes actually are.
>> Since you haven't bothered to quote a definition, one can only conclude
>> that you're making one up, and then using that to conclude that dos
>> does not "have real pipes". That's an entirely circular argument,
>> because you've chosen an arbitrary definition of a "pipe".
>
>
>I'm using the definition of how data is piped between applications using
>shell syntax.
If your definition of pipes refers to UNIX shell pipes,
case your definition is entirely circular.
Obviously, a DOS pipe is not a UNIX pipe.
> I am not mking up a definition because I could use the
>eaxmples I qouted on a real computer.
I'm not making up my definition of car, because I could drive
at 200mph in a real car.
I'm not making up my definition of C++, because I can compile
MFC applications on a real C++ compiler.
>Come back and argue when you understand the principles of proving
>something.
I'm finishing up a PhD in math, and I'm perfectly aware of the principles
of proving something which is why it's as clear as daylight to me that
you are not proving anything. You can't prove anything without proper
definitions or at least knowing some properties of the pipe. If we accept
your non-standard definition of a pipe, then your argument is trivially
correct (since the definition is contrived on an ad-hoc basis to serve
the conclusion)
However, it's important to be clear that when you say
that "DOS doesn't have real pipes", you are referring to your own
arbitrary nonstandard definition, and not the definition used by people
who know what they're talking about.
>> It's a small subset of the
>> functionality offered by pipes.
>
>So? Under this small subset of functionality, I have shown that what DOS
The problem is that you are confusing the UNIX implementation of pipes
with what pipes are. In particular, you would need to include asynchronous
processing in the definition of pipe.
I suppose if you define pipes by the UNIX implementation of pipes, then you are
correct, but that's not a widely accepted definition of what a pipe is, and to
define a term by an implementation is a very convenient way to make sure that
the said implementation is the only one that satisfies your definition.
>has does not work properly. Since I have shown one case in which the DOS
>emulation of pipes fails, then dos does not have pipes as they are
>defined in UNIX.
Correct, Dos does not have UNIX pipes.
> Therefore DOS does not have pipes.
No. You have only proven that Dos does not have UNIX pipes.
>Remember: to prove something false, you simply need ONE piece of hard
>evidence to the contrary. I have shown this, so DOS does not have pipes.
No you haven't.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:43:13 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > All the links I got were to IBM's site, none of which mentioned anything
> > about $1 billion.
>
> Chad, you are helpless - nobody else had any trouble
> finding the billion dollar references in a matter of seconds.
On other sites.
Besides, I don't have all day trying to prove your case for you.
But while we're on that subject, I see you've successfully non-sequitored
into this IBM deal which really wasn't the original topic or point of
this discussion.
You made several wide-eyed claims about Linux having 20% market share in
this, 50% marketshare here, etc.
I believe you also claimed that a majority of those Apache virtual
hosts on NetCraft were run by Linux.
Please provide at least one link backing up any of THOSE claims.
I really could care less about what IBM's doing because they will
change their focus again in 6 months just like every other 6 months.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Interesting Google Facts!
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:59:18 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mlw"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> > It could also be 40,200,000 archived messages pleading for help with
>> > installing Linux. But even that is a good general indication of
>> > uptake for Linux. How goes that proverb, "Bad publicity is better
>> > than no publicity"?
>>
>> All publicity is good publicity
>
> Tell that to Bill Clinton.
I was just quoting the proverb, liek the poster asked.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:52:21 -0000
In article <975ouf$s43$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > more applications that ship with drivers for printers? Does any of this
> > sound _wrong_ to anyone?
>
> Depends what you consider wrong, but I don't bother with the gimp drivers.
The idea of each application having its own driver to talk to a device is
what I meant by "wrong". It's harking back to the bad old days when each
application did its own thing.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:18:38 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You make it sound like grocery stores are getting hurt by the tax.
>> The threshold is very high, you have to be a millionaire for the
>> tax to have *any* effect.
>
>Wrong. $600,000 is where it kicks in....which is *NOTHING*
>for a farm or a small machining shop.
Umm... The limit is higher than that for farms and small businesses.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:36:04 +0000
> What I´m referring to was not so much the telnet client proggy (that is
> just awfully bad in windows) but the telnetd equivalent in W2K, the
> deamon proggy. When someone telnets to a W2K machine (does not matter
> which telnet) and then just lets it stay there at the login-prompt
> without actually ever logging in, telnet to that W2K machine is down.
> It won´t allow another telnet until the original telnet session has
> started (you log in) or the connection is lost. That is the most
> braindead implementaion of a telnet server prog that you can think of,
> in other words, another fine piece of Microsoft innovation.
LOL it's a security feature. The admin can disable telnet remotely very
quickly if necessary.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:41:44 +0000
Bloody Viking wrote:
> Yes and no. A fact is that there's only a finite amount of oil to be had - at
> any price.
I believe you are incorrect on that matter. "At any price" is a silly
thing to say, since it includes things like a hundred-billion bucks a
barrel. *Well* before that price is reached, bioengineering plants to
produce long-chain hydrocarbons becomes economic (e.g. by modifying rubber
trees) and that makes the amount of oil available truly enormous.
> A subtle item you miss (and all the economists miss) is that the
> nonconventional oil (tar sands, shales, etc.) are not necessarily obtainable
> at any price. The jury is still out on tar sands and shales as we have not
> found a way to get that oil out in a way that we get more than a barrel for a
> barrel used to extract it. We may find a way, and "suppressed technology" may
> yet emerge, like the petrol-electric car to get triple the fuel economy, based
> on the decades-extant diesel-electric locomotive drivetrain.
It is (currently) cheapest to pump oil straight out of the ground in those
parts of the world where there are relatively uncontaminated supplies. And
most of these other technologies have very high start-up costs, so much so
that the current long-term price of a barrel doesn't really justify the
investment. But that doesn't mean that they are permanently uneconomic,
just currently not worth it. Situations vary with time.
(Combined-cycle cars are unlikely to be developed in the US first, since
their consumer oil prices are pretty low compared with many other places in
the world.)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I could even declare myself a religion, if that'd help.
-- Mark Loy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:55:38 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> They want you to be a conformist little robot who offers ZERO resistance
>> to any of their decisions.
>
>Me having a gun would make no difference to a single decision the
>government has made in recent times.
The lose of your rights comes one at a time, baby. Pull your head
out, and just say NO to those who want to take away your freedoms. It
doesn't matter if your a gun-owner or a communist or a flaming fairy.
Tell the government to leave intact your rights as a free American.
>> You see...incidents like Dunblane are HYPED so as to brainwash you into
>> surrendering your BASIC HIMAN RIGHT to self defence.
>
>I didn't own a gun anyway. The new legislation stopped nutters getting
>guns. Almost noone in the UK (barring criminals) owned hand gund. The
>legislation won't affect criminals and it won't affect non gun owners, so
>it has affected almost noone. Besides, if you still are hell bent on
>protecting your home, then you can get a shot gun, since they are still
>allowed.
What's that story again? Something like "they came for the jews, and
I didn't say anything because I wasn't a jew" and some other similar
phrases, and at the end, "when they came for me, there wasn't anyone
else to say anything."
>If the government wanted to turn on us and guns were legal, it would cut
>off the supply first, as well. Any stocks of ammo wouldn't last very long.
>Again, having a gun wouldn't help much.
Bad logic. "Your tool might not last forever, so why have the tool at
all?"
>And the government forces have avaliable guns of far higher precision and
>power than I would be able to afford. I may as well just use a bow and
>arrows for all the help a hand gun would be against trained army forces
>with fantastically expensive weaponary. Again, me owning a gun would do
>very little against a dictator coming in to power.
If my little pistol is so weak, why do you want to take it away from
me? You can't have it both ways, buddy!
Hell, I can see handgun stores opening all over in China right now!
After all, they pose no threat to the government and all it's scary
weapons, right?
------------------------------
From: "Seán Ó Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:01:31 -0500
"Henri Karrenbeld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >No, you may simply run the browser as a user who has no address book.
That's
> >what I do.
>
> Although this helps against some viruses it does not work against:
>
> - viruses that scan the netwerk stream for email addresses (like
I-Worm.Hybris
> and I-Worm.MTX)
>
You may well be right, but I have some doubts. How do these programs "scan
the network stream"? Are you sure they'd be permitted to do this when run
under a guest account on an NT-class OS?
>
> - viruses that scan your 'Sent Mail' or 'Inbox' folder for Email addresses
> (example: I-Worm.ZippedFiles, it scans Inbox)
>
No, the account I use has only a minimal profile for the IE cache. It has no
personal folders a-la Outlook or OE...
>
> - viruses that spread via infection of MIRC.INI (like VBS.Loveletter)
> - viruses that spread via infection of your Outlook Express signature
> (like Wscript.Kakworm)
>
... and no private INI files. Furthermore, it's blocked by the filesystem
from reading anyone else's files.
>
> - viruses that spread by infection the outgoing NTTP and SMTP streams on
> the fly (like I-Worm.Happy99)
>
Perhaps, but I strongly doubt that a virus could actually wedge itself in
like that on an NT-based OS.
>
> - and then there's still viruses who sweep network shares and delete
> (or mangle) everything they can (like VBS.Loveletter)
>
Again, the account I'm using has no identity on the domain. Perhaps it could
still do damage to a plain old workgroup, though.
You make some potentially valid points, but I still say that the best place
to address them is in the platform (Windows/Unix) rather than building
another platform to run on top of it (Java applet sandbox).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Maximum Linux Magazine Is Going Out Of Business Ha Ha Ha
Date: 23 Feb 2001 15:01:57 GMT
That's why I didn't mind shelling out $7.99US at the local
supermarket for MaxLinux. I liked the heft in hand effect. Storm
cd never worked- failed without complaint as I recall. Anyone
have clues about what its particular requirements might be? But
along with Storm was Mandrake which worked great. And the
editorial content was not that bad at all, IMO. At least the
names were different than those here in the Linx ng's. :)
Vacuo
"Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Wiley Post"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > The thiefs at Maximum Linux magazine stole my 30.00 subscription fee
> > almost a year ago. They never sent me any magazines and now they are
> > closing down. Good!!!
>
> I second that. I subscribed because it looked like it was aimed at a
> newbie like me (Linux Journal is high quality but a bit over my head).
> Fschers haven't sent me a single issue yet. It is refund time.
>
> --
> Osugi "I now have a lawyer" Sakae
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: "Linux Usage Linked to AMD Damage" - MSN R&D Division Customer Alert
Date: 23 Feb 2001 15:08:22 GMT
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Do you know what the really sad part about it is....it could actually be a
> press release in the pipe line!
>
> Matthew Gardiner
>
> "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Customer Alert:
> >
> > As Chief Architect for MSN R&D, I must finally answer, clarify and perhaps
> > offer appropriate solutions to the dangers involved in running Linux on
> AMD
> > processors. Many concerned customers have written statements similar to
> > the following: "Lately, I have heard many [... censored ...] things about
> > linux in the news. But, is it true that Linux can cause damage to AMD
> > Athlon chips?"
> >
> > Yes, this certainly is the case. That's why care and vigilance must be
> > applied to the maintenance of AMD chips. Go to
<<schnippage>>
Don't laugh, but be sure you have silicone grease under your
heatsinks and be sure your cooling fans are in top shape. And
keep the operating environment cool too.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
