Linux-Advocacy Digest #549, Volume #32 Wed, 28 Feb 01 04:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux--First Impressions from a semi-newbie (Ed Allen)
Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7) (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Hijacking the IP stack ("Mike")
Re: [OT] .sig ("Z")
Re: [OT] .sig ("Z")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Chris Torek)
Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... ("Mike")
Re: Hijacking the IP stack (Tim Hanson)
Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Hijacking the IP stack (Tim Hanson)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
alt.internet.p2p (peer-to-peer) newsgroup created (Jonathan Grobe)
Re: why open source software is better (Craven Moorehead)
Re: M$ doing it again! (Klaus-Georg Adams)
Re: I say we BAN "Innovation" ("Edward Rosten")
How much does it take to make sound work in linux?? (#KUNDAN KUMAR#)
Re: [OT] .sig (Richard Heathfield)
Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7) (Casper H.S. Dik - Network
Security Engineer)
Re: //////////////|||||||||| Evidence Eliminator ||||||||||\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
. 5704 ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux--First Impressions from a semi-newbie
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:01:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Scott Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Thanks, I'll do that. I don't know if the driver that Promise
>provided me was in the form of a loadable module, but I'll give it a
>shot. I looked on the driver disk that was created when I downloaded
>and executed their driver for Redhat 6.1/7.0, and the only file of any
>appreciable size is called "modules.cgz". Here is the whole file
>listing from the driver disk:
>
>PCITABLE 0 07-19-00 4:22p pcitable
>MODULES CGZ 361,642 11-10-00 12:39p modules.cgz
>MODULES DEP 0 07-19-00 4:22p modules.dep
>MODINFO 76 11-10-00 12:41p modinfo
>RHDD-6 1 3 11-10-00 12:39p rhdd-6.1
>
>I don't recognize the extension ".CGZ". When I changed the extension
>to just "GZ", I was able to gunzip it into a file called modules.cpio,
>which was about 700K. Does this look like a loadable module? Now that
>I think about it, I'm encouraged that the driver provided was for both
>RH 6.2 and 7.0, since presumably they didn't both ship with the same
>kernel. If the driver support works for at least two kernels, maybe
>I'll be able to use it with 2.4.2
>
I suspect that the .cgz indicates that it is a 'gzip'ed cpio file.
Cpio is an archive program like 'tar' is.
First make a temporary working directory:
mkdir /tmp/promise
Then in the directory you listed above try:
gunzip -c modules.cgz | cpio -pvd /tmp/promise
To extract the files. They probaly include some .o
files which will go in your /lib/modules/2.4.2/ hierarchy.
One of the files is probably a 'README' telling you where and how to
place them.
--
How much do we need to pay you to screw Netscape?
- BILL GATES, to AOL in a 1996 meeting
------------------------------
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7)
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:07:56 +1000
"Bryant Charleston, MCSE" wrote:
>
> I've just spoken to a Solaris rep and he showed me the link to their site
> where Solaris 8 can be purchased. He says it's essentially an improved
> Version 7, which is quite popular from what I've been able to ascertain.
> There's a n X86 version ($75 -- not TOO expensive, just like you said). I
> think this is it!
>
> Thanks for the advice (from all of you)!
If you do not want to buy hardware as well, make sure your hardware is
on the Solaris HCL (Hardware Compatability List). Support for x86
hardware is not as broad as Linux' support.
IanP
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Hijacking the IP stack
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:09:14 GMT
"Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have seen it here that Microsoft used a lot of BSD code in its
> networking. Specifically, someone here said that much of the IP stack
> in NT and Windows 2000 is really "borrowed" BSD code. There is a writer
> who is interested but is asking me for some concrete evidence of BSD
> code specifically in Microsoft networking code, particularly in their
> implementation of TCP/IP.
>
> Can anyone point me to an authoritative reference?
/* WINSOCK.H--definitions to be used with the WINSOCK.DLL
* Copyright 1993 - 1998 Microsoft Corp. All rights reserved.
*
* This header file corresponds to version 1.1 of the Windows Sockets
specification.
*
* This file includes parts which are Copyright (c) 1982-1986 Regents
* of the University of California. All rights reserved. The
* Berkeley Software License Agreement specifies the terms and
* conditions for redistribution.
*/
Of course, this doesn't prove the point you're trying to prove, but this is
Usenet, where facts are few and fast and loose. You may as well play along.
> Bombeck's Rule of Medicine:
> Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died.
Mike's Query: Should you go to the doctor whose Bombeck died?
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: "Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:24:29 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Once upon a while "chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>(Yes, I'm not american. Thank god!)
>
> I'm glad you're not, too. We don't need any more book-burning fascist
> censors in our country.
How can you judge from your point that I am a book-burning
fascist? Have you seen me burn books? Have you seen me act
like a fascist any time? I bet you didn't, because you never
could.
If your point is, I post from germany, I must be fascist, I
need to tell you that there are actually more Nazis in the
US than in Germany, and I am _not_ german.
--
Z ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
"LISP is worth learning for the profound enlightenment experience
you will have when you finally get it; that experience will make you
a better programmer for the rest of your days." -- Eric S. Raymond
------------------------------
From: "Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:25:19 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Once upon a while "chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>(Yes, I'm not american. Thank god!)
>
> I'm glad you're not, too. We don't need any more book-burning fascist
> censors in our country.
Ah, an extra note:
*plonk*
--
Z ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
"LISP is worth learning for the profound enlightenment experience
you will have when you finally get it; that experience will make you
a better programmer for the rest of your days." -- Eric S. Raymond
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Torek)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 27 Feb 2001 23:32:16 -0800
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >Can I, or can I not write my own printf() which behaves utterly and
>> >completely differently than the printf() in the standard library?
>Chris Torek wrote:
>> You can try. Whether it will work, and under what conditions,
>> depends on your implementation. Tell me enough about these and I
>> can give you a yes or no answer.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Thank you for conceding my point.
Your point appears to have been that you can always replace any
function and have it do what you expected. My point is that this
is not so; and as such, C compilers are within their rights to make
assumptions about Standard C library function names, so that those
functions need not *be* functions, or may be called when there is
no source-level call to those functions, or both.
If what appears to be a function call results in an inline instruction,
can you call it a function at all? If those function calls are
built in to the compiler, can you really claim that they are not
part of the compiler? If they are part of the compiler, are they
not part of that compiler's language?
What, then, makes (e.g.) memcpy() and strlen() "not part of the
language", when any attempt to replace them fails? And if they
are "not part of the language", what accounts for the fact that,
e.g., replacing memcpy() causes ordinary language constructs --
assignments of the form "a = b;" -- to fail?
More philosophically, consider the needs of programmers in general.
On comp.lang.c, to which this is cross-posted, some of us try to
ensure that the C code we write will work on *every* conforming
hosted platform, rather than the one we happen to be using today
(which, in my case, is often different from the one I was using
yesterday -- so it is in my interest to make my code as portable
as possible). To do so, we attempt to use only Standard C, which
includes what is called "the Standard C Library". In this, we are
lucky that the C89 group said, in the Rationale to the 1989 C
Standard:
One of the Committee's goals was to consider such areas
of divergence and to establish a set of clear, unambiguous
rules consistent with the rest of the language. This
effort included the consideration of extensions made in
various C dialects, the specification of a complete set
of required library functions, and the development of a
complete, correct syntax for C.
By making them "required", the X3J11 group made them part of Standard
C. When "C" or "the C programming language" is taken to mean "the
items specified by X3.159-1989, the American National Standards
Institute's standard for the C programming language", that makes
the "required library functions" part of "C". (This was a big
change from C as it existed in 1982. When I used the Whitesmiths
compiler, it had no printf(), only a putfmt(). There was no way
to write a portable program that did output -- you had to "putfmt"
on Whitesmiths, and "printf" on the VAX. Back then, the library
functions really, truly were not part of the C language, so that
you could not count on them existing in every C compiler.)
Although X3.159-1989 has been superseded by ISO 9899:1999 (which
has no Rationale text), the above remains true today.
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Berkeley Software Design Inc
El Cerrito, CA, USA Domain: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 510 234 3167
http://claw.bsdi.com/torek/ (not always up) I report spam to abuse@.
Note: PacBell news service is rotten
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:41:28 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You know, the phone company was once a monopoly and
> the government broke them up. We used to pay
> over a buck a minute to call my Grandmothers house.
>
> If she were alive today, I could call her for 5 cents
> a minute. And considering inflation causing the price
> of housing to go 6 times higher than then, the price
> of gas to go 6 times higher than then, to pay 5 cent
> a minute for longdistance is incredible.
The phone company was granted a monopoly, Charlie, much like your gas
company and your water company are today. The fact that you could call your
grandmother for a nickel isn't the same the price of housing or gas. It
would be the same if you could put 1000 houses in the place that 1 house
occupied 20 years ago, or get 10,000 miles per gallon of gas in your car
today, but you can't, and it isn't.
I know your capacity is limited, Charlie, but maybe you should think about
that for a while. The costs of communication and computing power are not
driven by real estate or resources, and are fundamentally different than the
costs of housing and energy.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Hijacking the IP stack
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:04:55 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Umm.. Berkeley's TCP/IP stack is free software. You can't "hijack" it.
> It's free for whatever use you want, including use in closed source
> applications. You don't even need to give them credit anymore as of a few
> years ago.
"Hijack" was probably the wrong word, although it has some figurative
value since the company using the BSD code is doing so in an attempt to
exterminate BSD.
> In any event, MS does include Berkeley copyright notices in several of it's
> TCP/IP apps, such as ftp and finger, etc.. The fact that they include those
> in those programs, but not in the stack makes one think that perhaps they
> may have used the berkeley stack as a guide, but not the actual code.
> "Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I have seen it here that Microsoft used a lot of BSD code in its
> > networking. Specifically, someone here said that much of the IP stack
> > in NT and Windows 2000 is really "borrowed" BSD code. There is a writer
> > who is interested but is asking me for some concrete evidence of BSD
> > code specifically in Microsoft networking code, particularly in their
> > implementation of TCP/IP.
> >
> > Can anyone point me to an authoritative reference?
> > --
> > Bombeck's Rule of Medicine:
> > Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died.
--
Law of Communications:
The inevitable result of improved and enlarged communications
between different levels in a hierarchy is a vastly increased area of
misunderstanding.
------------------------------
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:08:19 +1000
2 + 2 wrote:
>
> If we consider an OS as a framework and an execution engine, then the Java
> Platform IS that new monopoly, and Sun's fondest dream.
>
> Except this OS is a web middleware OS.
>
> Consider: it is widely said that Microsoft's old desktop monopoly is
> "history," to be replaced by high powered servers running devices so you can
> take your desktop with you.
Er, just because some competitors and pundits are claiming that M$'s
monopoly is "history" does not make it so now, and even may not make it
so in the future. That's why there was a anti-trust trial in the first
place. Perhaps M$ should have used as their defence: "oh well, soon
mobile devices will completely destroy our market, guess we're not
really a monopoly at all. So there!".
> Ever hear this? Multitudes of posters suddenly have amnesia. :)
>
> How can an OS that is "history" be a monopoly, when part of the definition
> of a monopoly is that it can prevent competition?
"While it is not illegal to have a monopoly position in a market, the
antitrust laws make it unlawful to maintain or attempt to create a
monopoly through tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the
market or significantly impair their ability to compete."
http://money.york.pa.us/Articles/Microsoft.htm#t3
> What is the competition that it cannot prevent? Hooking up to the web via
> various middleware. An OS with no web connection has no market. An OS with
> web connections, ie middleware, is transformed into a Network OS (NOS).
>
> The new Network OS has as its underlying "platform" a web-centric framework
> and execution engine. Ever hear of the Java Platform? How about the .NET
> Platform?
>
> For technical analysis, the posters have suddenly become the famous, "hear
> no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" trio.
>
> Gentlemen, start you engines: let the toadying begin.
>
> 2 + 2
>
It's not about the monopoly per se, it's about the dirty tactics M$ used
to maintain it.
IanP
--
"Dear someone you've never heard of,
how is so-and-so. Blah blah.
Yours truly, some bozo." - Homer Simpson
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Hijacking the IP stack
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:08:53 GMT
Mike wrote:
>
> "Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I have seen it here that Microsoft used a lot of BSD code in its
> > networking. Specifically, someone here said that much of the IP stack
> > in NT and Windows 2000 is really "borrowed" BSD code. There is a writer
> > who is interested but is asking me for some concrete evidence of BSD
> > code specifically in Microsoft networking code, particularly in their
> > implementation of TCP/IP.
> >
> > Can anyone point me to an authoritative reference?
>
> /* WINSOCK.H--definitions to be used with the WINSOCK.DLL
> * Copyright 1993 - 1998 Microsoft Corp. All rights reserved.
> *
> * This header file corresponds to version 1.1 of the Windows Sockets
> specification.
> *
> * This file includes parts which are Copyright (c) 1982-1986 Regents
> * of the University of California. All rights reserved. The
> * Berkeley Software License Agreement specifies the terms and
> * conditions for redistribution.
> */
>
> Of course, this doesn't prove the point you're trying to prove, but this is
> Usenet, where facts are few and fast and loose. You may as well play along.
>
> > Bombeck's Rule of Medicine:
> > Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died.
>
> Mike's Query: Should you go to the doctor whose Bombeck died?
>
> -- Mike --
Thanks. There is an article in this, and it won't be very kind to M$.
The more references, the better.
--
If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify him.
They would ask him to dinner, and hear what he had to say, and make fun
of it.
-- Thomas Carlyle
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Date: 28 Feb 2001 08:09:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/
>>65 - Mostek
>>68 - Motorola
>>74 - Fairchild
>>80 - Intel
>
>Does this mean Harris got 18? :-)
>
>e.g. 1802, 1861.
Is there a list of this somewhere? Might be an interesting factoid.
Also, where does the Intel 4004 fit in, if they're supposed to be using 80*?
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
This post is No. 54 056 in a limited edition of 700 000 000. Certificate of
Authenticity attached.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Grobe)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.python,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.tcp-ip
Subject: alt.internet.p2p (peer-to-peer) newsgroup created
Date: 28 Feb 2001 08:21:44 GMT
Reply-To: <>
Subject: alt.internet.p2p (peer-to-peer) newsgroup created
Followup-To: alt.internet.p2p
alt.internet.p2p has just been created for discussion of p2p
(peer-to-peer) applications on the internet.
Quoting Clay Shirky:
"P2P is a class of applications that takes advantage of resources --
storage, cycles, content, human presence -- available at the edges of
the Internet. Because accessing these decentralized resources means
operating in an environment of unstable connectivity and unpredictable
IP addresses, P2P nodes must operate outside the DNS system and have
significant or total autonomy from central servers.
...
If you're looking for a litmus test for P2P, this is it: 1) Does it
treat variable connectivity and temporary network addresses as the
norm, and 2) does it give the nodes at the edges of the network
significant autonomy? If the answer to both of those questions is yes,
the application is P2P. If the answer to either question is no, it's not
P2P."
These applications include file sharing such as Napster and Gnutella,
instant messaging such as ICQ, distributed computing such as SETI@home.
Many news administrators only add new alt.* groups on user request. So if
it is not available at your site ask your news administrator to add it:
Write to him at the address news or usenet at your site or to the
technical support people there (address: support)). Because of the
poor propagation of new alt groups it will be a while before a
significant amount of traffic shows up.
--
Jonathan Grobe
------------------------------
From: Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:26:50 +1100
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:04:26 +0000, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>>The really bad thing about Windows is that it is poorly written and
>>>crash happy (at least the version I bought (ie 95)). I still have it
>>>installed, but never run it.
>>
>> What was Linux like in '95. crude crude crude.
>
>I don't know. I got in to it in 1998.
Well if you started using computers recently then Linux may be just
the shot if you don't need to use common commercial and consumer
software.
But I have been using MS products since 1982 and they have always
served me well.
>> Well ....you can say the same thing now :)
>
>Compared to what. For what I want, windows is crude.
Windows 2000 is crude ? In what way ? Not in the interface, not in the
applications and not in it's capabilities.
I have used various Unixs and Linux, for the desktop, they are
unbelievably crude, sure they are good servers.. I don't need an OS
that lasts a year between reboots, that is all Linux has got going for
it (apart from being free) for the desktop.
Craven
------------------------------
From: Klaus-Georg Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: 28 Feb 2001 09:23:31 +0100
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For instance, sys_geteuid16 is a syscall that's completely undocumented
> other than it's uncommented source code.
I'm pretty sure this syscall will be documented better in glibc, the
user of these syscalls. From the name alone and some context knowledge
I can deduce what it does, without ever looking at the source.
Linux 2.4 has 32bit uids, while in 2.2 they were 16 bits. This must be
the call to provide binary compatibility for old apps, compiled with
16 bits uids. The glue around this is provided by glibc.
So duh, it is selfdocumenting.
--
kga
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I say we BAN "Innovation"
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:35:59 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not the concept - the word. It's seriously getting over-used.
Can we add `technology' to this list.
Even Vauxhall have a new seat "technonlgy" in their people carrier. Yuk.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: #KUNDAN KUMAR# <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: How much does it take to make sound work in linux??
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:34:04 +0800
Thanks...
=====Original Message=====
From: Adam Warner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 8:48 AM
Posted To: advocacy
Conversation: How much does it take to make sound work in linux??
Subject: Re: How much does it take to make sound work in linux??
Hi #KUNDAN KUMAR#,
> I have become frustrated and you are my last hope.Even though i am a
> newbie, i managed to install debian and upgrade my kernel to 2.4.1.
But
> after lots of tweaking, I am unable to get the sound working with good
> quality. I had LM 7.2 installed on my computer earlier and the card
was
> working fine.
> What I could get from the KDE control center was something like this:
> Yamaha DSXG PCI(YMF724F) o:YMFPCI at oxd5020000, irq 10 (DUPLEX)
alias
> sound-slot-0 snd-card-ymfpci post-install snd-card-ymfpci modprobe
> snd-pcm-oss
I have found the YMF724 works great with a 2.4.2 kernel. I didn't do
anything sound-specific except upgrade my kernel in my Redhat 7.0
install.
2.4.1 had a lot of important bugs and it is highly recommended you
upgrade
(a data corruption bug was discovered).
These are the sound options I have compiled in as "Y"es. Everything else
is "N":
Sound Card Support Y
OSS Sound Modules Y
Yamaha YMF7xx PCI audio (native mode) Y
Yamaha PCI legacy ports support Y
Hope that helps,
Adam
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:36:09 +0000
From: Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Brent R wrote:
>
> Mathew Hendry wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:35:36 +0000, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >>>When was the last time you crawled under machine-gun fire, seeing the
> > >>>tracers flying literally within arm's reach of your head?
> > >>
> > >> I didn't know they were still using agent orange over there.
> > >
> > >Agent orange is still in widespread use as a weedkiller (a plant
> > >biologist informed me of this). I can't remember its name though.
> > >
> > >Just out of intrest, what do tracer bullits have to do with weed killer?
> > >
> > >I really can't figure that out.
> >
> > IIRC agent orange has some unpleasant side-effects on fetal development,
> > including limbs appearing in the wrong place (or not at all).
>
> No, I'm think that Agent Orange is a MAJOR carcinogen. All I know is
> that vets were feeling the effects relatively shortly after being
> exposed to it.
They use veterinary surgeons in war zones?
How true it is that one learns something new every day.
The point of this little digression into foetal development, of course,
was Mr Kulkis's statement (first, above), which seems a little
anatomically inappropriate. I wouldn't have mentioned this, as it's so
obvious, but some people seem to be a little confused. Just as I'm
confused about why one would send vets into a war zone. Soldiers? Yes.
Doctors? Certainly. But vets????
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engineer)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7)
Date: 28 Feb 2001 08:37:44 GMT
[[ PLEASE DON'T SEND ME EMAIL COPIES OF POSTINGS ]]
"Bryant Charleston, MCSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I've just spoken to a Solaris rep and he showed me the link to their site
>where Solaris 8 can be purchased. He says it's essentially an improved
>Version 7, which is quite popular from what I've been able to ascertain.
>There's a n X86 version ($75 -- not TOO expensive, just like you said). I
>think this is it!
You can download it from the same location for free.
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: //////////////|||||||||| Evidence Eliminator
||||||||||\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ . 5704
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:42:21 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Brent R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> > I think I'm capable of fixing my own computers, thankyouverymuch.
>> >
>> > : When you access the Internet, your computer keeps permanent hidden
>> > : records of your activities!
>> >
>> > I'm wondering where this magical "hidden records" drive is mounted...
>>
>> /mnt/.hidden_records
>>
>> That'll teach you for not doing an ls -f
>>
>> -Ed
>
> Dammit!! Bill Gates put that there, didn't he?!
Yep and if you look in your inetd.conf, you'll see that a telnet to port
0x42696C6C, it dumps a tar archive of /mnt/.hidden_records to that port.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:45:12 +0000
>> > Steam engines are rather more maintenance-intensive than diesels,
>> > IIRC. There is a lot of plumbing inside a steam engine's boiler, all
>> > of which has to be kept leak free.
>>
>> These days, that's fairly simple. Just use stainless steel, or
>> [steel electro-plated with copper] electro-plated with chrome.
>
> The larger the number of pieces, the higher the construction and
> maintenance costs. Moot point, since steam is gone except for nostalgia.
And powerstations.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
