Linux-Advocacy Digest #857, Volume #32 Sat, 17 Mar 01 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: IBM adapting entire disk storage line to work with Linux (Ed Allen)
Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses! (Moi - The Man Nibbler)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Memory needed to run linux / X windows ??? (Ray Chason)
Re: Here's a load of horse crap (Ray Chason)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market ("green")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Jan Johanson")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Jan Johanson")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: What does boxoffice measure? (Prospero)
Re: the truth about linux (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Jay Maynard)
Re: Here's a load of horse crap ("Shades")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jay Maynard)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Chad Everett)
Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie! (Jim Richardson)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Alan)
Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie! (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IBM adapting entire disk storage line to work with Linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:01:03 GMT
In article <cCOs6.82336$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>It's alright, laugh it up. I know you're really just jealous
>because you know that I'm right. You know that the only company
>who really takes Linux seriously (if that's what it really is)
>is IBM, and IBM has a poor track history with desktop and
>small-server OSen.
I suppose that is true if you have a secret definition for
"seriously" like Erik likes to do.
How many more millions does Intel need to invest to qualify in
your private definition ?
Lets not forget that AMD is encouraging Linux developers to use their
coming 64-bit chips. They don't qualify, why ?
SGI does not qualify either. Why not ? They are planning to add
their NUMA technology and sell Itanium cluster machines.
Then too, all the universities using Linux to put together their
own Supercomputers are not companies either.
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1113447
What do you think the graduating students will recommend for use
at their new jobs ?
This $150 million seems "serious" by my definition:
http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV47_STO56666_NLTpm%2C00.html
And Conoco seem happy with what they are doing:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-2654463.html?tag=st.ne.1430735..ni
Do you concede that your statement will not stand up or do I need to
dig up more links ?
This poor showing will not please your sock-puppet handlers. They
may want to retrain you. Again.
I have you killfiled so I won't see your response to this unless
somebody else responds to your response like happened on the one I
am responding to so don't take a lack of response to your blather as
anything other than personal distaste.
--
GPL says
"What's mine is ours,
If you make *OUR* stuff better the result is still ours."
------------------------------
From: Moi - The Man Nibbler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles,soc.support.fat-acceptance,sci.med.nursing
Subject: Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses!
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 19:05:30 -0700
On 17 Mar 2001 21:40:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
>
>Steve Chaney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>: I like how in Linux the GUI apps are migrating towards being a front
>: end for existing CLI apps. The cli apps authors are being nice and
>: putting all their functionality into libraries so GUI apps can
>: function through the libraries. Total interchangeability is achieved,
>: and the wheel doesn't get re-invented.
>
>That way, you have both CLI and GUI.
>
>: I converted yet another girlfriend to Linux (in curiosity mode, at
>: least) by its flexibility. But she can't live without the GUI.
>
Yet another girlfriend? Monkey boy stop lying! We all know you beat
up your girlfriends over stupid ass things, i.e. software programs.
>: BTW how do you think newbies should learn Linux?
>
>I originally learned computers with a CLI. However, I admit that the GUI is
>better for new people and end users. After a while, they could try a CLI to
>see if they like it or not. Most people prefer the GUI as normal end users.
>I'm an oddball becuse I prefer a CLI. Linux easally allows both.
>
>I would have to say that people should try a GUI first when trying Linux. With
>X, there's fvvm95, which is nice in that it will be rather familiar becuse it
>looks like Winblows 95. Of the X fvvm's, that's my favourite.
Excuse me Mr. Bloody Viking...it appears monkey boy is at it again.
He has this habit reading paragraphs out of a book to make it appear
he knows something. I'm sorry to tell you the only thing monkey boy
knows is how to physically abuse women, verbally abuse women, beat off
into socks, be a wanted pedophile and ........ <it escapes me but
it'll come to mind, otherwise I'm sure others will enlighten you to
what an ass monkey boy is>.
Take care and have a great day!
Moi
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:09:24 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 14:06:52 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >What's there to gloat about? This means they won't use Linux either, since
> > >they claim they won't use *ANY* software developed in America, and much of
> > >Linux is developed in American by Americans.
> >
> > Go quibble with the Germans.
> >
> > >Sure, they could examine the source themselves, but it doesn't sound like
> > >they're making informed decisions based on actual evidence, so I doubt they
> > >would disect Linux to prove to themselves that there aren't back doors.
> >
> > I'm sure they _have_ examined the source already. SuSE Linux is a
> > German distro and very popular throughout Europe. Europeans have long
> > suspected that Windows contains NSA backdoors. I wouldn't be at all
> > surprised if the German and possibly other European goverments had a
> > strong hand in SuSE Linux from the beginning, with the every intention
> > of dumping Windows as soon as they had a workable replacement and the
> > necessary applications to go with it.
>
> This also means they won't use any Sun or Oracle product, or any of a
> thousand others. I guess they did a good job martyring themselves,
> but it's a pretty stupid move in general. Microsoft, Sun, and Oracle
> all make very good and useful products.
>
Well, this is true for Sun and Oracle, but Microsoft products aren't
good and consequently not useful.
> I suppose if they had conclusive proof of it, it would make sense,
> but they don't, so it doesn't.
Not to use Microsoft products makes sense in any case.
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Memory needed to run linux / X windows ???
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:16:43 -0000
peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Right now I only have 32 megs of memory in the machine I'm building
>for Linux. I would like to run X windows, will this be enough ? I'll
>be using a cyrix p166 and a 4 meg trident card. As for what I will be
>doing with this linux machine, I don't know yet, probably learning
>about linux. Maybe I'll try some programming, who knows. I was going
>to use Red Hat or Mandrake.
If you plan to run KDE or GNOME, you probably want at least 64 MB.
If that isn't practical, you'll probably want to use one of the more
lightweight window managers such as fvwm2; but that'll take a bit of
getting used to if you're accustomed to Windoze.
Another 32 megs will cost you maybe $40, and will do wonders for your
system performance.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Here's a load of horse crap
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:17:44 -0000
"Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I suppose those lightbulbs are innovative ideas in the software industry and
>in the next picture he gets up and stomps all over them :-)
Notice that most of the bulbs are dark. I leave it to y'all to
figure out why.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: 17 Mar 2001 20:19:17 -0600
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 00:25:06 GMT, mmnnoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <RrPs6.1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >> Sure, they could examine the source themselves, but it doesn't sound
> >> like they're making informed decisions based on actual evidence, so I
> >> doubt they would disect Linux to prove to themselves that there aren't
> >> back doors.
> ><snip>
> >
> >And what actual evidence should they examine to conclude that
> >closed-source software is secure?
> >
> >To suggest an answer my own question, if the Germans are serious
> >about this, I'm surprised Microsoft hasn't offered to let them
> >examine whatever source code they like.
>
> Let's see, Erik wants actual evidence. How about a backdoor placed
> in Microsoft software that allowed users who entered "Netscape programmers
> are weenies" to bypass security in Microsoft's web server software
> and access pretty much anything they wanted.
Evidence? You call this evidence? What you wrote is complete bullshit and
does not exist in anything but your fantasy.
> This, added to the fact
> that Microsoft is doing everything they can to make it illegal to reverse
> engineer their OS and look for security holes and back doors seems like
> enough evidence for me.
MS doesn't have to do anything to make it illegal, it was already that way
before MS got involved. It's not MS's doing.
>
> There is plenty of ACTUAL evidence.
>
> How about this little item:
>
> ---------
> MICROSOFT DENIES NSA HAS KEYS TO WINDOWS
> The recent discovery of a software key in Microsoft Windows
> labeled "NSA Key" has led to speculation that the software
> company is covertly allowing the National Security Agency access
> to encrypted data. Microsoft and the NSA both issued statements
> denying the rumors on Sept. 3. Microsoft says the keys are
> intended for use in installing new scrambling software and
> helping users who have forgotten their passwords. However, the
> "NSA Key" label concerns many experts who fear an alliance
> between Microsoft and the secret intelligence agency.
> Cryptographer Andrew Fernandes discovered the label several weeks
> ago while examining the code in a new version of Microsoft
> software that repairs Windows glitches. Ordinarily, the label
> does not appear, and had been mistakenly included in the update.
> Microsoft says the label only implies that the key is compliant
> with the NSA's technical standards. (Washington Post 09/04/99)
Your evidence is the proof that the NSA *doesnt* have a backdoor key to
windows?
You are a fucking idiot.
------------------------------
From: "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 12:22:44 +1000
the same applys with ext2.
I have a bad power prob at home. (last on a long line.)
if windows crashes so what its expected and majority of the time reboots.
rare to loose a partition table but it has happened. why I don't know?
if linux looses power .... I figure its bad.
whats the point of auto save if it gets saved only to cache?
after saying this I'll admit Ive never actually lost a file on either system
other than bad floppy disk's.
"Bloody Viking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:98stnk$1o4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> green ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : It's hard to convince people it is worth the change and there is enough
apps
> : when they are comfortable using what they have got and know.
>
> You can probably say the same about all OS rivalries BUT who can be
> comfortable about losing files in the imminently inevitable next crash?
It's
> pretty sad of an OS when its users have to get a utility to auto-save a
file
> every two minutes.
>
> --
> FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
> The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
> The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: 17 Mar 2001 20:20:20 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Dave Martel wrote:
>
> > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17679.html>
> >
> > German armed forces ban MS software, citing NSA snooping
> > By: John Lettice
> > Posted: 17/03/2001 at 18:59 GMT
> >
> > The German foreign office and Bundeswehr are pulling the
> > plugs on Microsoft software, citing security concerns,
> > according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel.
> > Spiegel claims that German security authorities suspect that
> > the US National Security Agency (NSA) has 'back door'
> > access to Microsoft source code, and can therefore easily
> > read the Federal Republic's deepest secrets.
> >
> > "The Bundeswehr will no longer use American software ... on
> > computers used in sensitive areas..."
>
> This makes me quite proud of my German ancestry.
You are proud of ignorant paranoia?
Is there ANY proof of this "back door"? Nope.
The real truth is that Germany is still pissed that MS included Diskeeper
technology whos CEO is a scientologist.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: 17 Mar 2001 20:21:11 -0600
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17679.html>
>
> German armed forces ban MS software, citing NSA snooping
> By: John Lettice
> Posted: 17/03/2001 at 18:59 GMT
>
> The German foreign office and Bundeswehr are pulling the
> plugs on Microsoft software, citing security concerns,
> according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel.
> Spiegel claims that German security authorities suspect that
> the US National Security Agency (NSA) has 'back door'
> access to Microsoft source code, and can therefore easily
> read the Federal Republic's deepest secrets.
>
> "The Bundeswehr will no longer use American software ... on
> computers used in sensitive areas..."
>
Proof ONLY that the Bundeswehr are both ignorant and paranoid.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:32:09 GMT
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Dave Martel wrote:
> >
> > > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17679.html>
> > >
> > > German armed forces ban MS software, citing NSA snooping
> > > By: John Lettice
> > > Posted: 17/03/2001 at 18:59 GMT
> > >
> > > The German foreign office and Bundeswehr are pulling the
> > > plugs on Microsoft software, citing security concerns,
> > > according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel.
> > > Spiegel claims that German security authorities suspect that
> > > the US National Security Agency (NSA) has 'back door'
> > > access to Microsoft source code, and can therefore easily
> > > read the Federal Republic's deepest secrets.
> > >
> > > "The Bundeswehr will no longer use American software ... on
> > > computers used in sensitive areas..."
> >
> > This makes me quite proud of my German ancestry.
>
> You are proud of ignorant paranoia?
>
> Is there ANY proof of this "back door"? Nope.
>
> The real truth is that Germany is still pissed that MS included Diskeeper
> technology whos CEO is a scientologist.
Now that last statement sure is a whole let better than
the "ignorant paranoia" you quote above. Guffaw!
Chris
------------------------------
From: Prospero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does boxoffice measure?
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 18:38:24 -0800
Anonymous wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner) wrote:
> > True. Hollywood is one of my almost-pet-peeves. (I only allow myself
> > three or four full-blown pet peeves, so I have to be selective about
> > what I let bother me.)
> > Why is that we (speaking about the American culture here) pay these
> > people millions of dollars, practically worship them as dieties or
> > royalty, pay them to endorse our products, and generally emulate the
> > hell out of them when their only talent that they exercise publicly is
> > their ability to act!?!?
>
> it is better to look good than to be good
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
Unless you're Alex Rodriguez.
--
Brock
"The greatest thing, you will ever learn, is to love and
be loved in return."
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the truth about linux
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:44:37 GMT
"Public " wrote:
>
> Here are some humorous snippets from a site located at
>http://members.aol.com/erichuf/Linux.html
>
> Finally! somebody willing to tell the truth!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Too much verbiage to read right now.
But basically the guy confuses Linux with commercial software.
However, I'd bet some of his points are cogent. Also, he has
links to other interesting documents that he wrote.
As far as his co-opting of the word "truth", when he means
"opinion", well, let the reader beware.
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: 18 Mar 2001 03:09:33 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:02:23 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>What difference does it make to you that M$ has made billions of dollars?
>I would like to give them less more of it. Is that somehow difficult to
>grasp, that I would expect vendors to provide service, rather than rip
>people off, force shoddy goods on them, and put the money in the bank?
I would like to give them less of it, too...but, unlike you, I do not
believe that their making money is fundamentally immoral.
>>I'm certainly no fan of the company, but I do not begrudge them having made
>>money.
>Nor would I, if they'd ever made any money, as in earned it. They're a
>criminal organization, who have monopolized. Only a moron would be a
>fan of the company.
I agree about their monopolization - hell, I was an OS/2 bigot for years, I
can't believe anything else - but I do *not* believe that making money off
of software, itself, is either illegal, immoral, or fattening. You are
arguing that they should not have made any money at all, and I cannot and
will not ever agree to THAT idea.
>>Further, I'm happy they used the BSD networking code - for the
>>alternative is *not* that they would not have made as much money, or that
>>they would not have sold their software, but that they would have sold *just
>>as much* software, but with a broken IP implementation that the rest of the
>>world would have to live with. Therefore, I believe the BSD license has
>>actually saved the world a lot of heartache.
>Therefore, you're a moron.
Huh? I'm typing this in a TeraTerm window on Win2K right now. I run Win2K
not because I want to, but because I have to. If I had the choice, I'd run
Linux and OS/2, but I don't. Since I'm stuck with Win2K, I'm much happier
that the network stack I'm using right now *works*. What in any of that
makes me a moron, to anyone but an unreasoning zealot?
> Here I am, having a relatively calm
>discussion with Les, pointing out how he couldn't *possibly know*, and
>frankly I don't think he can imagine, what the alternative is, and here
>you come out of the woodwork to put a bow on it. Just how clueless are
>you, man?
I live and work in the real world. I see that folks often have to do things
they wouldn't otherwise do, because of external factors they have no control
over. I see no way at all they would have sold less software, under any
circumstances, enough to make a difference. IBM's total ineptitude at
marketing doomed OS/2 far more than M$'s monopolistic tactics, as abhorrent
as you (and I, for that matter) find them.
>>>Thanks for all your freaking help, man. No wonder the RMS wrote the
>>>GPL.
>>RMS committed the GPV well before M$ became the behemoth it is today.
>"Committed the GPV". Christ; why not just put up a banner in your sig
>that says "ignore what this putz says; he wouldn't know an argument if
>you handed to him."
Only to an unreasoning zealot. Others will at least listen.
Now, how about answering the argument? What possible connection can M$'s
monopolistic tactics have had on RMS' creation of the GPV when they happened
AFTER HE DID IT?!
------------------------------
From: "Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Here's a load of horse crap
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 22:27:15 -0800
That pic it is bizarre. What is it with him? There is a lot one can see in
that pic and it is all negative. I cannot see what it is even suppose to
mean from an MS perspective.
"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >I suppose those lightbulbs are innovative ideas in the software industry
and
> >in the next picture he gets up and stomps all over them :-)
>
> Notice that most of the bulbs are dark. I leave it to y'all to
> figure out why.
>
>
> --
> --------------===============<[ Ray
Chason ]>===============--------------
> PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
> Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
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, and lies about free software
Date: 18 Mar 2001 03:21:23 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:02:13 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 15 Mar 2001 03:40:24
>>Why is it a good thing to force people to do something against
>>their will?
>Because it maintains freedom.
This is right up there with "fucking for virginity".
Hint: It's a concept in direct contradiction with itself. Forcing people to
do something against their will *never* maintains freedom; it can only
destroy it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 04:03:33 GMT
On 17 Mar 2001 20:19:17 -0600, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> Let's see, Erik wants actual evidence. How about a backdoor placed
>> in Microsoft software that allowed users who entered "Netscape programmers
>> are weenies" to bypass security in Microsoft's web server software
>> and access pretty much anything they wanted.
>
>Evidence? You call this evidence? What you wrote is complete bullshit and
>does not exist in anything but your fantasy.
>
This is as true as it gets bucko. I think you are very misinformed.
>> This, added to the fact
>> that Microsoft is doing everything they can to make it illegal to reverse
>> engineer their OS and look for security holes and back doors seems like
>> enough evidence for me.
>
>MS doesn't have to do anything to make it illegal, it was already that way
>before MS got involved. It's not MS's doing.
>
>>
>> There is plenty of ACTUAL evidence.
>>
>> How about this little item:
>>
>> ---------
>> MICROSOFT DENIES NSA HAS KEYS TO WINDOWS
>> The recent discovery of a software key in Microsoft Windows
>> labeled "NSA Key" has led to speculation that the software
>> company is covertly allowing the National Security Agency access
>> to encrypted data. Microsoft and the NSA both issued statements
>> denying the rumors on Sept. 3. Microsoft says the keys are
>> intended for use in installing new scrambling software and
>> helping users who have forgotten their passwords. However, the
>> "NSA Key" label concerns many experts who fear an alliance
>> between Microsoft and the secret intelligence agency.
>> Cryptographer Andrew Fernandes discovered the label several weeks
>> ago while examining the code in a new version of Microsoft
>> software that repairs Windows glitches. Ordinarily, the label
>> does not appear, and had been mistakenly included in the update.
>> Microsoft says the label only implies that the key is compliant
>> with the NSA's technical standards. (Washington Post 09/04/99)
>
>Your evidence is the proof that the NSA *doesnt* have a backdoor key to
>windows?
>
>You are a fucking idiot.
>
Yet another incredibly intelligent argument from a Microsoft drone.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie!
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 19:58:21 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 13:49:36 GMT,
Pete Goodwin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"And lo it came to pass, that I desire to post an article, so I did take
>up mouse and keyboard, and enter via the excellent application called
>KNode. Yea verily, it did crash out on me, whereas before it had worked
>fine".
If it crashed on you, why call it "excellent"?
>
>This is on SuSE 7.1 Personal, with KDE 2.1. You know, the Windows killer.
>Got a ways to go yet, I see.
>
>--
>Pete
>All your no fly zone are belong to us
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 04:08:37 GMT
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 04:03:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad
Everett) wrote:
>>Evidence? You call this evidence? What you wrote is complete bullshit and
>>does not exist in anything but your fantasy.
>>
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2550735,00.html
MS calls it a pinhole. Some could claim you could fly a Boeing 747
through it.
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only. ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie!
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 20:03:44 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 18:54:31 GMT,
Pete Goodwin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> "And lo it came to pass that I left windows running for a few hours
>> without using it. And verily it threw up a BSOD, and I had to reboot"
>
>And lo it came to pass that I left running a Windows machine with Personal
>Web server on it and it has been running now for several months without
>rebooting or crashing.
wanna give out the ip addr?
>
>Don't believe all that you read in the press about Windows.
damn straight, if you believed what was said in the press, you'd conclude that
M$ worried about linux, that M$ wasn't worried about linux, and that M$ has
allready beaten linux, and that M$ doesn't know what linux is. All from M$, all
in the last 12 months.
>> This from the OS that won't be killed by KDE or Gnome or whatever.
>> Got ways to go yet I see...
>
>It's still way ahead.
for you maybem more power to you, for me? windows is a PITA that isn't worth
the hassle when I can easily get better performance and reliability from linux,
and when I consider the apps that *I* use, linux is way ahead.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
