Linux-Advocacy Digest #577, Volume #32 Thu, 1 Mar 01 11:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Les Mikesell")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Joseph Dalton)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better (phil
hunt)
Re: why open source software is better (phil hunt)
Re: why open source software is better (phil hunt)
Re: why open source software is better ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better ("Edward
Rosten")
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship ("Dale King")
Re: I say we BAN "Innovation" ("John Delaney")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better (Jay
Maynard)
Re: My long signature ("Edward Rosten")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Peter da Silva)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better ("Edward
Rosten")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better ("Edward
Rosten")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Dan Pop)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Edward")
Re: URGENT MESSAGE TO CHAD'S EMPLOYER Was: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Ed")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:49:08 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:lNsn6.1818$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bobby Shaftoe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:2XVl6.23279$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It seems to be, Chad, that all you've succeeded in doing is causing a
large
> > quantity of the regular users of this newsgroup to lose a whole load of
> > respect for you. Am I correct in saying that the one outstanding
> > 'fundamental flaw' in SSH is its "insecure" man-in-the-middle attack
during
> > initial key exchange?
> >
> > I'm hoping you've done all your research before crying wolf, because we
all
> > know that there isn't an encryption or certification algorithm on the
planet
> > that can authenticate an anonymous system. It is for this reason that
> > trusted third parties were conceived. If you exchange your first ever
key
> > across the Internet (or any other public network) then you have to
accept
> > that the key could have been compromised at that moment, but then, you
> > wouldn't do that on a "secure" system, would you?
>
> Ok, let's stop right there. First, I have NEVER attempted to debate any of
> the specifics of why SSH is bad. I do not claim, nor have I ever claimed
> to be an expert in the field of encryption. Second, I have cited sources
> of "experts" in the field who have posted vulnerabilities in SSH 1 and 2.
> I have also cited SSH.com representatives themselves who claim SSH1 is
> "fundamentally flawed". He even went on to criticize OpenSSH for using
> this protocol as it endangers many people who use OpenSSH.
What you cited was someone with an obvious vested interest in selling
products. We all know how the truth may be warped in that particular
circumstance, especially since we have all been subjected to one
company's mastry of this art.
> It seems that the OpenSSH folks have ignored SSH.com's repeated
> communications about trademark violation and using the flawed SSH1
> protocol.
There are legimate questions about the decision to release ssh as an
open product, then try to undo it. Perhaps even more so about the name
of the interoperable protocol involved - if it isn't ssh, just what do
you call that protocol when it works among different vendor's products?
And, in case you didn't know - OpenSSH does both ssh1 and 2.
> This is what has concerned me. There are people who pretend to
> operate a trusted security product, but do not take the responsibility
> that comes along with operating such product. They don't seem to be
> the least bit scared of all the people out there still using SSH1.
> This seems irresponsible, at least.
Like everyone running the popular MS products that have no security
at all. Or the less popular ones without up-to-the-minute patches.
> When I attempt to alert everyone to it, or bring it up for discussion,
> I get flamed, insulted, and whatever other childish tactics they can
> bring against me. This concerns me even more. Are security products
> like this typically run by a bunch of immature adolescents?
No, people using them understand that there is a theoretical exploit
possible with no proven occurance with the ssh1 protocol. They also
understand that you have no concept of the magnitude of the problems
in closed source products and have not interest other than wanting to
make open source look bad.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Joseph Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: 01 Mar 2001 09:48:42 -0500
Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Well, not everything is perfect on Linux. For instance
> yesterday, while I was testing the NIC of a new laptop, it
> continuously complaining about network being unreachable,
> instead of telling me plainly that the network cable I was
> using was unplugged at the other side. :-)
>
> --
> Giuliano Colla
>
> Before activating the tongue, make sure that the brain is
> connected (anonymous)
That's only because the your NIC manufacturer didn't include the Time
Domain Reflectometer option . :-)
--
-- Joe Dalton
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:38:10 +0000
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 20:35:41 +1100, Craven Coward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:53:43 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil
>hunt) wrote:
>
>Have you read the article today at ZDNet by Richard Smallman ?
>
>http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2690949,00.html
>
>Man, what a tosser !!
>
>He seems to have a real chip on his shoulder about Linux. He goes out
>of his way to call Linux GNU/Linux (technically correct) and adds that
>the majority of code in Linux is GNU (again correct).
Wrong. About 30% is GNU.
>Now down to "Free as in speech not as in beer". The man is a rabid
>communist. He says people can charge for GNU software but why would
>you do so ?
To get money, perhaps. It worked for him, after all.
>As soon as you use GNU software you have to GPL your
>software as well.
Wrong, idiot.
> So anyone can come along, get your code, add a tiny
>enhancement, compile it and give it away. There is nothing you can do.
What's wrong with the principle "I'll share with you if you share
with me"?
>Finally to nail him down to being a communist, this comment at the end
>"Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property
>rights, human rights must prevail." What he is saying is that if your
>software becomes important (successful) the public should be able to
>just take it for free.
No he isn't.
He's saying that laws prohibiting secondary copyright infringement
shouldn't impinge on human rights. So I should be allowed to write
an open source program to view a DVD that I have legally aquired,
for example.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ***** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]*****
"Mommy, make the nasty penguin go away." -- Jim Allchin, MS head
of OS development, regarding open source software (paraphrased).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:19:55 +0000
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:53:55 -0500, vrml3d.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> There is no evidence for any illegal anti-competitive
>> activity by any open source producer
>
>Ahem... government employees who produce software in the course of their
>daily work are *legally* obligated to place that work in the public domain.
>Any government employee who contributes to a GPL'd project is technicly
>violating the law.
If this is true, why haven't Microsoft sued over it?
> That's anticompetitive in my book.
Why? What's anticompetitive about it?
>There are at least two ways for producers to be driven out of the market.
>1. their product is inferior, or had no value as you imply. 2. those who
>would enter the market look at the conditions and decide it is not worth
>enterring.
Not entering a market isn't the same as being driven out of it.
Or did you mean that a company, in the market, might decide not to continue
developing it's products?
>If you go back to Win3.x days, with OSS generally unknown to just about
>everybody, there were strong incentives to enter the market, and many did.
>If you look at the market now, I can't think of many compelling reasons to
>enter and OSS is a primary factor. Even established vendors like Oracle are
>struggling now, and I don't think you can blame this on Oracle being an
>inferior product. The pressure is partly from the economy, but PostGre and
>MySQL are certainly playing a part.
Regarding Orcale, I think you can blame their prices. Last year i
had an Oracle salesman try to sell me their database for GBP
5,000. Given that I could get MySQL for nothing, and it was up to
doing the job (back end for a web server), I declined Oracle's
offer. Oracle are going to have to lower their prices if they want
to stay competitve. This is a *good* thing for the economy,
because it means that people can set up web sites more cheaply.
>From an economic standpoint, give me one good reason why I would want to
>write a DB server (as a pure software sales play, none of this "we sell
>support" BS)
Is it bullshit? Digital Creations (makers of Zope) don't think so.
> under these market conditions.
I don't know why you should do anything. I do know that several firms
are creating innovative database products. For example Zope, or Suneido.
Incidently, both of these are open source, which gives the lie to the
claim that OSS kills innovation.
>I give the OSS fad about 20 years to get to the point where the lack of
>fresh new applications becomes such a burden to consumers
Is there any evidence this would happen? Lots of innovative
programs have been open source, including:
emacs, one of the first applications with a built-in application
programming language
X Windows, the first ever distributed windowing system
CERN httpd, the first ever web server
Python, a very capable RAD language
Perl, a very-widely-used "duct tape" language
Linux, the first kernel to run on everything from a handheld to
a supercomputer
why should open source innovation dry up in a mostly open source world?
If open source does supercede proprietary (which it probably will
to some extent, but won't ever completely), it'll be because the
open source arena is full of new developments. Check out freshmeat
and appwatch if you don't believe me.
> that they begin to
>thumb their noses at free software. You'll see articles in the tech mags
>saying things like "the shrink-wrapped box is back".
If the market (i.e. consumers) decides they want proprietary software,
then let them have it. Similarly, if they prefer open source, then let
them have that.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ***** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]*****
"Mommy, make the nasty penguin go away." -- Jim Allchin, MS head
of OS development, regarding open source software (paraphrased).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:22:12 +0000
On 1 Mar 2001 09:33:36 GMT, Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>(2) People are only motivated if they can make money at it. This is so
>obviously false I don't think I need to say anymore.
Unfortunately some people believe it to be true. This is sad,
because it means they have never appreciated the pleasure of doing
good workmanship.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ***** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]*****
"Mommy, make the nasty penguin go away." -- Jim Allchin, MS head
of OS development, regarding open source software (paraphrased).
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:54:35 GMT
"Peter Seebach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a9e5b44$0$26818$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <NQln6.4972$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >How odd then, that NCSA Mosaic source code didn't enter the public
> >domain but was instead brokered through a third party on its way
> >to becoming Internet Explorer so another company could make loud
> >noises about innovation...
>
> I am pretty sure there was, for quite a while, a free project derived from
> that code, too.
>
Mosiac source code was available, but I don't recall every seeing any
of it without restrictive copyright notices. Was there another spinoff?
Also, there was a big issue about Netscape having to prove that it did
not contain any of the code written by the same author for mosaic. How
could that have been a problem?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 15:07:02 +0000
>>>Aren't you getting confused now? Open source does not necessarily mean
>>>free,
>>
>>It meas free as in speech, but not necessarily as in beer.
>
> Have you read the article today at ZDNet by Richard Smallman ?
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2690949,00.html
>
> Man, what a tosser !!
Sopken from you, this is funny. remember you are talking about a guy who
has the drive and ability to make a big difference in the area he feels
isimportant. You're some random who whinges on C.O.L.A. So, who is the
tosser?#
> He seems to have a real chip on his shoulder about Linux. He goes out of
> his way to call Linux GNU/Linux (technically correct) and adds that the
Linux is a kernel. The OS is GNU/Linux. I try to call it that when I
remember.
> majority of code in Linux is GNU (again correct). This is not the first
> time I have seen him do this. The fact that 99% of the computer literate
> society regard Linux incorrectly as Linus's baby must really bug him.
I'll try to avoid too much speculation, but it could be a bit irritating
especially as without RMS, Linux would be nowhere to be seen at the
moment.
> He had a little dig at Linus "when GNU was almost finished, the kernel
> Linux written by Linus Torvalds filled the last gap"
I wouldn't call that a dig, it is historically accurate. The kernel was
the missing pice of the jigsaw required for a free(tm) OS. Hurd was
proving very difficult to make work.
> He must hate that
> guy. He must be pissed that he does all the work and little old Linus
> comes along and gets all the glory.
I wouldn't speculate on who he likes and doesn't. Linus has certainly
done a lot to forward RMS' movement in a practical way.
> Now down to "Free as in speech not as in beer". The man is a rabid
It's written in your constitution (I assume you're from the US) that you
have a right to free speech. Are you going to throw away that constution
because it is communist?
> communist. He says people can charge for GNU software but why would you
RedHat charged for it and I paid.
> do so ? As soon as you use GNU software you have to GPL your software as
You're talking out of your arse again. You have to GPL any of your code
which includes GPL'd code. That is all.
> well. So anyone can come along, get your code, add a tiny enhancement,
> compile it and give it away. There is nothing you can do.
If its GPL'd they can give it away anyway, enhancements or not. If people
don't want their code to be igven away, they don't GPL it.
> Finally to nail him down to being a communist, this comment at the end
> "Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property
> rights, human rights must prevail."
I beileve your constitution has a strong focus on the rights of _people_.
What a communist document that must be.
> What he is saying is that if your
> software becomes important (successful) the public should be able to
> just take it for free.
He didn't say that.
-ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 15:09:48 +0000
>> >> A simpler definition is:
>> >>
>> >> a mechanism which allows the output of one process to be put in to
>> >> the input of another process in the order that it (the data) was
>> >> outputted.
>> >
>> > You need to include some sort of reference to the fact that process1
>> > and process2 are running simultaneously (as opposed to sequential
>> > execution...i.e. process2 must be able to start executing while
>> > process1 is still running).
>>
>> You don't need to specify that process 1 and 2 are concurrent, since it
>> can be deduced from the definition.
>
> No..there's wiggle room to allow perverted interpretations such as the
> DOS implementation.
No. Under my definition, what DOS has are _NOT_ pipes.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Dale King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:08:25 -0500
[followups trimmed]
"Robert MacGregor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MPG.150667b84aefd07c9896c6@news...
> I love Linux, I really do, and have used it for years as my li'l home
Interesting thread, but it unfortunately has absolutely no relevance to
comp.lang.java.programmer. Please remove it from all replies.
--
Dale King
------------------------------
From: "John Delaney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I say we BAN "Innovation"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:31:29 +0000
In article <97jjeh$62j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Brian Langenberger"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ah, but what about:
>
> "revolutionary", "solutions" or "enterprise"?
>
"empower", "leverage" and "harness" immediately spring to mind as being
immensely annoying buzz-words, e.g.:
"Empower yourself with our software, which, through harnessing the power
of the Intel Pentium (r) processor (#dum dahdum dah#), enhances your
ability to leverage your business in today's highly competitive
marketplace".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Date: 1 Mar 2001 15:15:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 20:35:41 +1100, Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>He seems to have a real chip on his shoulder about Linux. He goes out
>of his way to call Linux GNU/Linux (technically correct) and adds that
>the majority of code in Linux is GNU (again correct). This is not the
>first time I have seen him do this. The fact that 99% of the computer
>literate society regard Linux incorrectly as Linus's baby must really
>bug him.
Indeed. Personally, if the GNU OS was finished in 1991 when Linux first hit
the street, why the hell did it take until 2000 to complete? That makes it
even more vaporous than any M$ product.
I agree with Linus's take on that: "The midwife doesn't get to name the
baby." The system is Linux, dammit, and RMS is trying to hog some of the
fame that Linus rightfully deserves.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My long signature
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 15:22:32 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Brian Langenberger wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <snip!>
>> >>
>> >> Does anyone else see the irony of a long-winded, occasionally
>> >> flame-filled thread on the subject of bandwidth conservation?
>> >>
>> >> *I* find it amusing, in any case...
>> >
>> > Exposes the hypocrisy, doesn't it.
>>
>> Like when, in the middle of a flame filled thread about your sig, you
>> claim that the sig reduces flame wars?
>>
>
> If you call this a flamewar, you REALLY would be overwhelmed by the
> pre-.sig ones that followed me around.
I was referring to the flamewar x-posted to clc.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.dev.null
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 1 Mar 2001 15:26:12 GMT
In article <lNsn6.1818$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, let's stop right there. First, I have NEVER attempted to debate any of
> the specifics of why SSH is bad.
Then what are you attempting to accomplish? If you don't know enough about
the subject to tell whether the issues you're bringing up matter or not, how
do you expect to convince people who *are* experts in the field?
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 15:34:29 +0000
>>He seems to have a real chip on his shoulder about Linux. He goes out of
>>his way to call Linux GNU/Linux (technically correct) and adds that the
>>majority of code in Linux is GNU (again correct).
>
> Wrong. About 30% is GNU.
No, of the operating system, well over 50% is GNU.
The operating system is the kernel + OS tools (such as ls, rm, sh etc)
needed to run it. Applications don't count as part of the operating
system, but the distinction between the two does get a little blurred.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 15:38:30 +0000
>>He seems to have a real chip on his shoulder about Linux. He goes out of
>>his way to call Linux GNU/Linux (technically correct) and adds that the
>>majority of code in Linux is GNU (again correct). This is not the first
>>time I have seen him do this. The fact that 99% of the computer literate
>>society regard Linux incorrectly as Linus's baby must really bug him.
>
> Indeed. Personally, if the GNU OS was finished in 1991 when Linux first
> hit the street, why the hell did it take until 2000 to complete? That
> makes it even more vaporous than any M$ product.
It didn't take until 2000 to hit the street. Slackware started selling it
in 1993 IIRC and it was avaliable for download before then.
> I agree with Linus's take on that: "The midwife doesn't get to name the
> baby." The system is Linux, dammit, and RMS is trying to hog some of the
> fame that Linus rightfully deserves.
Well, I disagree. Without GNU, Linux would be nowhere. A kernel on its
own is not an operating system. How do you think Linux suddenly went from
baing a kernel to an operating system? It did that because 90% of the
operating system had already been written by GNU. All the components are
essential. Claiming that one is somehow more deserving than the others is
silly.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pop)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 1 Mar 2001 15:28:43 GMT
In <97l20p$1h6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Edward Rosten" <[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?
>>>>>
>>>>>a) no B) YES.
>>>>
>>>> You cannot define your own printf name with external linkage.
>>>
>>>You can if you're not linking against the standard library.
>>
>> If you're not linking against the standard library you're not using a
>> conforming implementation, in which case you're automatically off topic
>> in c.l.c.
>
>I was under the impression that to be conforming, the system had to
>provide a standard library, but you could choose not to use if (for
>example if you're in to building kernels).
ONLY if the implementation provides a freestanding mode.
On a hosted implementation, it may be impossible to separate the compiler
from the library: the compiler is allowed to have special knowledge
about the standard library functions and inline them or take advantage
of the specifics of their implementation (because it may "know" how
they are implemented).
Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, IT Division
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail: CERN - IT, Bat. 31 1-014, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
------------------------------
From: "Edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 15:44:07 +0000
> And even the people that responded to the facts I posted attempted to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
LOL!
> somehow discredit the vulnerabilities posted on Bugtraq. They said
> they're patched, great, but what about the many people out there that
> are still using the "fundamentally flawed" SSH1 protocol. They seem to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why do you put that in "'s?
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: URGENT MESSAGE TO CHAD'S EMPLOYER Was: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 15:48:17 +0000
>> > I thank God every day that I don't have to use that box as my desktop
>> > because the state of Unix and Linux is so poor, I would have to shoot
>> > myself if I did.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Please, whoever employs Chad, remove his windows machine this instant
>> and make him use Solaris/CDE.
>>
>> -Ed
>
> Let the record show the kind of immature childish assholes I attempt to
> engage in an intelligent debate with.
Are yor really trying to claim that *that* is an intelligent debate?
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 15:49:53 +0000
>> Well, not everything is perfect on Linux. For instance yesterday, while
>> I was testing the NIC of a new laptop, it continuously complaining
>> about network being unreachable, instead of telling me plainly that the
>> network cable I was using was unplugged at the other side. :-)
> That's only because the your NIC manufacturer didn't include the Time
> Domain Reflectometer option . :-)
They did but It(tm) is Only(tm) Avaliable(tm) under Micros~1(R) Windows
(tm).
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 17:32:30 +0100
al wrote:
> http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=20143
>
Bullshit
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
