Linux-Advocacy Digest #157, Volume #33 Wed, 28 Mar 01 12:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: First Cross platform (w32 and Linux) virus (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Now I know (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Windoze multitasking (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Communism (Craig Kelley)
Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs? ("Hugo Chesshire")
Re: Kulkis not Chad, Gates (was Re Unix/Linux Professionalism) (WesTralia)
Re: Distro Bigotry... (Mikael Hedin)
Re: Now I know ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better (Jay
Maynard)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Paul 'Z' Ewande®")
Re: Windoze multitasking ("Paul 'Z' Ewande®")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Too expensive, too invasive (was: Re: uh oh, redhat is gonna do it) (T. Max
Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:07:35 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 27 Mar
2001 23:59:02 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Matthew Gardiner
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Sun, 25 Mar 2001 22:40:02 +1200
><99ki2v$pe1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>I can't remember, I was still using my Amiga 500 up until 1995. Unlike
>>most users, I see a computer as a tool (aka a very fancy pencil), not a
>>replacement for human contact (which probably shocks many nerds out there).
>
>Darn. And here I thought IRC sex channels were the way to meet girls. :-)
Don't you know anything? Girls like guys with very fancy pencils. I
tried to show my girlfriend my tool, but she got scared when she saw the
size of the monitor.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:07:35 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 27 Mar 2001 19:42:12
[...]
>Not at all true but you can't handle the truth...
No, its "you can't HANDLE the Truth!". Now try it again.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:07:36 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:54:19
>Craig Kelley wrote:
>>
>> Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > As if anyone really cares:
>> >
>> > http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/howtotell/
>> >
>> > This URL appears at the bottom of a Sony VAIO
>> > ad. I wonder why this URL is there... has
>> > Sony been accused of chicanery with Illegal
>> > Copies of Windows?
>> >
>> > Make sure your COA is genuine!
>> >
>> > http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/howtotell/how/default.asp
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >
>> > I'm tempted to be utterly juvenile, and send a note
>> > to the e-mail above stammering that somehow Linux
>> > got onto my Windows box. What am I to do????
>>
>> Try to buy a Vaio without Windows.
>>
>> Try to buy a Vaio without Microsfot Word.
>>
>> Try to buy a Vaio using anything other than Internet Explorer.
>>
>> Are not these crimes as well? Why should we pay for Word more than
>> once?
>>
>> --
>> It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
>> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
>
>From what I've heard, down in Autralia, a group of people sued Toshiba.
>They wanted a refund on the microsoft O/S as they didn't want that O/S.
>They wanted Linux instead.
>Toshiba refunded!
That's an urban legend. The real story is more interesting. Do some
research.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: First Cross platform (w32 and Linux) virus
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:20:17 +0000 (UTC)
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jon Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: http://support.avx.com/cgi-bin/command/solution?11=010327-0017&130=098573182
: 5
: Gotta love this:
: W32.Winux contains the following text: "[Win32/Linux.Winux] multi-platform
: virus by Benny/29A" and "'This GNU program is covered by GPL."
"Risk : Low"
I suppose it might pose a threat to those who login as "root" constantly
and make a habit of running any unsigned executable they download off
the internet. But if one's going to go that route, a trojan would
be just as effective at wiping lots of data.
I'm not exactly quaking with fear...
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Now I know
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:11:58 +0200
David Jordan wrote:
>
> If any response, please ... leave my mother apart ;-)
>
Well, your mother is clearly ashamed of you, I guess.
But now all is well, now that Chad / Conrad / Jan have gotten a new
comrade in arms.
But on my Troll-O-Meter you just registered with a very lame 0.7
Peter
--
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze multitasking
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:18:06 +0200
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> 1.) NT has great multitasking. It is certainly better than Win9x, so
> I don't know what this guy is smoking. Win9x and WinNT both have
> preemptive multitasking, so the values for RC5 might be similar, but
> I'd like to see him running several server processes that are serving
> several thousands of clients, and then we'll see where NT's better
> MT comes in. NT has several levels of priorities for applications.
> He was probably running the RC5 at the default priority. Also,
> was he running NT workstation, or server? Workstation has the quanta
> (the time slice, from what I understand) optimized for workstation
> tasks, and it also is set to give the foreground application a 2
> priority level boost. In server, this is not the case. In server,
> the numbers probably wouldn't have dropped at all, or very slightly.
>
> 2.) Windows 2000 is slightly better in that it offers even more
> fine grained control over the priorities. I think it offers more
> than just the 16 that NT offers, but I may be mistaken. Also,
> I think for Win2K server, they have tweaked the quanta slightly
> as well to eek out slightly better performance for workstations
> and servers in their respective roles.
>
> This guy doesn't really know what he's talking about, I mean,
> he's using RC5 to test true multitasking and doesn't even mention
> anything about quanta, priorities, whether or not he's using NT
> WKST, or server and in what roles they are being used in.
>
Yeah.
And earth is flat
Peter
--
Windows is just the instable version of Linux for users who are too
dumb to handle the real thing.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:15:18 +0200
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> It's not a production machine, of course.
> It's a development machine.
> I thought is was obvious when I mentioend Development.
>
>> *and* puts a firewall too unto it shows clearly that he/she has no real
>> knowledge about firewalls at all.
>> IIS alone on that machine is enough to render the firewall meaningless.
>> A firewall *always* belongs on a different machine, except it´s a
>> playthingy like ZoneAlarm and the other Personal Firewalls.
>
> IIS is only for the intranet.
> The firewall is there for the rest of the machines that use this
> computer to reach the Internet.
>
Can you explain in laiman´s terms were you see any real difference between
a "production" and a "development" machine?
I myself am a developer, and I would *never* put my sources on a machine
with direct connection to the internet. I´m simply not dumb enough to do
that.
Peter
--
Are you sure you REALLY want to read this with Netscape?
[ ] YES Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
[ ] NO Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
[ ] LOCK UP Crash Windows and soft reboot
[ ] BSOD Crash Windows and hard reboot
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 28 Mar 2001 08:22:12 -0700
Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley wrote:
> >
> > Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > GreyCloud wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have freedom to make as much money as I know how.
> > >
> > > The problem with this freedom is that this right ends up killing a lot
> > > of hard-working, decent human beings. That is why capitalism is a
> > > murdering system. It kills millions of people every year in the
> > > world.
> >
> > As opposed to *what*, exactly.
> >
> > Cuba, North Korea and China are not paragons of virtue.
>
> China is practically a capitalist country right now.
>
> I would venture to say that the Cuban system kills few. Certainly, in
> the rest of Latin America, capitalism is a killing machine. At least
> Cuba has dedicated itself to the principle that, within its means, it
> will try not to kill any human beings due to lack of food, shelter,
> medical care, poor sanitation, etc.
Bullshit.
Have you ever spoken with a Cuban? I speak fluent spanish and I have
spoken with *many* and they all pretty much:
1) Love Cuba
and
2) Despise the government
Why do you think they kill themselves to come *here*?
> Will the US even commit to this? No. Actually, lack of proper
> medical care murders 250,000 Americans every year, in one of the
> world's richest countries! Most of these are good, hard-working
> folks. Why did they have to die? So a relative few could make some
> extra bucks. How could anyone defend such a system?
Huh? I've lived in cities from the size of millions to a small town
the size of 4000 and have never seen these people. I supported myself
by working at McDonald's and managed to pay for school at the same
time. I didn't manage to pay for the nicest place to live, but I had
enough money to buy a PlayStation and way too many games.
Death never entered the equation.
> I suppose the idea would be to come up with an economic system that
> did not systematically kill so many human beings. Capitalism can be
> reformed to the point where hardly kills at all (well-regulated
> capitalism, probably the best system so far) but capitalists never
> seem to want to do this because by saving lives, they would end up
> making less money. Any system with that kind of ideology seems pretty
> immoral to me.
You are crazy.
Go to Miami and visit with a few refugees before you spout off again.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Hugo Chesshire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs?
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:47:16 GMT
"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:tVfw6.2006$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> The order of magnitude improvement has occurred over around 15 years, not
> 10, but even with that, you're talking about a limit that's 20 to 30 years
> away. Needless to say, this isn't what anyone loses sleep over. There are
> other dimensions, like gate oxide thickness, that are well over an order
of
> magnitude smaller than metal line width. And there are plenty of real
> problems that will rear their heads long before metal width does.
>
> In fact, metal is one of the things that people feel pretty good about
right
> now. Copper processes are coming on line, providing reduced capacitance
(no,
> not resistance), and low-k dielectrics, which will reduce capacitance
> further, are in the wings. Chemical-mechanical polishing has planarized
the
> oxide surface to the point that high layers of metal can retain their
small
> dimensions.
I would say that metal processes are inherently limited. We may have life
left in them for a good long while, but eventually new technology is going
to have to be brought in, or we're going to have to live with the computers
we have and accept they're not getting faster.
We could look at other solutions, for example instead of making faster and
faster chips to move to widespread SMP, on the principle that a
well-designed OS can exploit 2+ processors and gain speed there. You get
some diminishing returns, but it's better than nothing.
Or we could look at optical computers, using light paths instead of metal
traces. Photons are much smaller than atoms and the traces can cross paths
without interference, something that's not possible now. Of course,
eventually we'd hit the ceiling for optical computers as well, but they
could be taken a lot further than metal-based ones. The technology needs
much research to become viable, but if we have 20-30 years worth of
metal-based development left that should give us enough time. Even we have
less, with enough investment and research it's possible.
Still alternatively, there's biological computers, based not on electronics
and electronic principles, but instead based on an artificial cerebral
cortex and neural net technology, like our own brains. A human brain has
more processing power than any computer, and not only that, has the ability
to think outside the boundaries of logic. Biological systems have their
problems too, like forgetting, but there's always the Cyberpunk dream of
fixing these problems with electronics and melding the two together.
I'm no futurologist, or an expert in any of these technologies, so don't ask
me to explain any of this any further please. I just read NewScientist. :)
--
Hugo Chesshire
Remove ".nospam" to reply
------------------------------
From: WesTralia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Kulkis not Chad, Gates (was Re Unix/Linux Professionalism)
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:40:28 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 26 Mar 2001
> > >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 24 Mar 2001
> > >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >> >> >Those that doubt the ease with which this can be accomplished are barking
> > >> >> >up the wrong tree.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I don't think anyone here doubts the ease with which it can be
> > >> >> accomplished, and many are familiar with the necessary technique. That
> > >> >> doesn't make it any less of a lie, Aaron, for you to say you've done
> > >> >> this, when apparently that is a fabrication. Simple as it may be,
> > >> >> there's not even a smidgeon of a hint of a reason to believe you when
> > >> >> you say you've already done it. Not anymore.
> > >> >
> > >> >I command you to JUMP!
> > >>
> > >> That doesn't even work in real life, Aaron. Get some help. You do
> > >> deserve it. You're a very intelligent man.
> > >
> > >So, you concede that just because someone on USENET tells you to do
> > >something is *NOT* sufficient reason to obey their instructions.
> >
> > The point is not at issue. If I had the ability to do it, and were you,
> > I'd have sufficient reason to demonstrate I could, to silence my
> > detractors. You, on the other hand, will insist this isn't the decision
> > you've made, in a fruitless effort to disguise the fact that you can't
> > comply, so its not an issue of whether you would 'obey'.
> >
>
> Then why didn't you jump when I told you to do so?
>
It's too funny watching a Wintendo98 luser squirming.
Tell us again, Aaron, just how changing that string in your
news reader provides you with security? I love your explanation.
Go beyond the "security through obfuscation" dance routine, please.
And while your at it, tell us more about your convoluted method
for using a modem to remotely call your personal machine and
then bring up your Netscape browser/news reader on the local
machine. I love this story! No matter the job site, you are
able to all day long use your own personal trusty news reader
with the changed X-Mailer string -- across a modem to boot!
Oh Aaron... you Micro$haft guys truly are poor liars.
--
-wt
------------------------------
From: Mikael Hedin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Distro Bigotry...
Date: 28 Mar 2001 17:05:39 +0200
"Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> If you are interested in getting people to convert to Linux, it makes sense
> to create a distribution running an up to date KDE desktop. The idea being
> that converting over from Windows will be less painful for the user. RedHat
> however have a different market hence are more concerned with stability than
> getting the latest version.
ROTFL
/Micce
--
Mikael Hedin, MSc +46 (0)980 79176
Swedish Institute of Space Physics +46 (0)8 344979 (home)
Box 812, S-981 28 KIRUNA, Sweden +46 (0)70 5891533 (mobile)
[gpg key fingerprint = 387F A8DB DC2A 50E3 FE26 30C4 5793 29D3 C01B 2A22]
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Now I know
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:14:41 +0600
Peter K=F6hlmann wrote:
> But now all is well, now that Chad / Conrad / Jan have gotten a new
> comrade in arms.
Or maybe just another sock?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
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: 28 Mar 2001 16:15:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 28 Mar 2001 09:43:05 GMT, Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Jay Maynard wrote:
>>If it means making people's intellectual work worthless, then you will
>>never succeed in that endeavor.
>What a mercenary mindset you have.
>zero cost != worthless
However, it takes money to keep food in the pantry and the rent paid and
Lexus Financial Services from coming to repossess my car. None of those can
be done without it. If I can't make money from doing software, then I'll
have to do something else that does bring in real dollars.
*NOTHING* is truly zero cost. Trying, as you advocate, to distort the
equation by removing any possibility of meaningful monetary compensation for
someone's intellectual work will simply drive people out of fields to which
that applies, thus a) impoverishing large numbers of people, and b)
drastically reducing the amount of intellectual work being done.
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande®" <[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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:27:07 +0200
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le
message news: 99s60m$ppf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> I think the point here is that WinNT's multitasking is not much better
than
> Win9x - it means the same thing literally, but the implications of the
> arstechnica comment are wildly different from yours.
What I mean is that Win9x is always are always ridiculed, but they really
aren't *that* bad. If one has to give credit to Business/Highend Winstone
scores, which are a multitasking mix of "business" apps on one side
"high-end" on the other side, on the same boxes, you have a 10 to 30%
advantage to NT/2K compared to Win9x.
Compare the Win9x scores
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1051&p=4
with the WinNT ones:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1051&p=7
But, do you believe, since it was the original point of this that floppy
formatting isn't a big deal, even in Win9x and that it was dependant on the
hardware ?
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande®" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze multitasking
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:30:23 +0200
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
BAlw6.2794$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> 1.) NT has great multitasking. It is certainly better than Win9x, so
> I don't know what this guy is smoking. Win9x and WinNT both have
Relax Chad. WinNT is a better multitasker than Win9x, nodody ever doubted
that [provided NT has enough memory to flex its muscles].
> preemptive multitasking, so the values for RC5 might be similar, but
> I'd like to see him running several server processes that are serving
Win9x isn't designed for that. It was designed to buy time for Microsoft to
allow the transition from Win16 to Win32. It's done. Get go into retirement
now.
> several thousands of clients, and then we'll see where NT's better
> MT comes in. NT has several levels of priorities for applications.
But of course, Win9x, will die, that's where the stability/robustness part
comes into the equation, since it will quite rapidly run out of the so
called "resources".
> He was probably running the RC5 at the default priority. Also,
> was he running NT workstation, or server? Workstation has the quanta
> (the time slice, from what I understand) optimized for workstation
> tasks, and it also is set to give the foreground application a 2
> priority level boost. In server, this is not the case. In server,
> the numbers probably wouldn't have dropped at all, or very slightly.
Depends on wether RC5 was in the background or not. :)
Seriously, he wasn't basing on his RC5 results to make the comment. I don't
know why to jumped the gun or get so irate. Did you see some Win9x RC5
scores in that page ? I sure didn't.
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> This guy doesn't really know what he's talking about, I mean,
> he's using RC5 to test true multitasking and doesn't even mention
> anything about quanta, priorities, whether or not he's using NT
> WKST, or server and in what roles they are being used in.
He was making a *casual* comparison between WinNT and MacOS 8.6 with default
set ups, no need to delve into such intricacies such as quantas,
priorities,... Since the Mac was going to get trashed anyway...
Since you need a little background that guy wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/tweak/nt/pagefile-1.html
http://arstechnica.com/tweak/nt/udma.html
http://arstechnica.com/tweak/win2k/others/disable_sfp-1.html
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/3q99/beosr45/beos-4.5-1.html
I should have never brought Ars-Technica Caesar into this, and I apologize
to him.
Chad, do you believe that Win9x can deal with a simple floppy disk ?
> -c
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:29:40 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001
>"Paul 'Z' Ewande®" wrote:
[...]
>> All this under Win98SE. Not too shabby for a DOS based piece of crap. BTW,
>> i'm not the only one who thinks that Win9x multitasking abilities aren't
>> that far behind WinNT.
>
>This story lacks the ring of truth.
Actually, it does. If you'd noticed he's talking about managing to do
three trivial things all at the same time, with only some slowing.
That's not too shabby for a DOS based piece of crap. And having
switched back now from NT to 9x again, I can confirm that NT's
multi-tasking actually is almost as crappy as WinDOS'.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:29:42 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> More fodder for those who like to point out you've obviously never been
>> in combat. Nor have I, but I'm bright enough to know that, were I one
>> of those blobs, I'd be the shadowiest, most camouflaged fucker in a
>> hundred miles, if at all possible. Believe me, its for camouflage.
>
>Those of us who've actually done it know otherwise.
Look, I don't know what kind of psycho rush it might give you to paint
your face. But your presumption at authority is very disturbing. Don't
forget about how badly you've already been spanked by the real soldiers.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:29:43 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> Believe me, its for camouflage.
>
>
>No, it's for the "conquering warrior" psychological effect it has
>on the wearer.
Don't let any real soldiers here you say that; they'll send you to a
psychiatrist. Not that you shouldn't go to a psychiatrist, ASAP. But
despite your delusions, the army frowns on giving lunatics any weaponry
or opportunity to do themselves or anyone else any harm.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,soc.singles,alt.os.linux.redhat,comp.os.linux.redhat,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Too expensive, too invasive (was: Re: uh oh, redhat is gonna do it)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:29:44 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 26 Mar 2001
>> >Bloody Viking wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Jim Dandie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> : It appears RH is trying to old B. Gates routine...mapping the config
>> >> : and using it to their advantage...What else are they grabbing from
>> >> : your box?
>> >>
>> >> This does sound suspicious. It seems like a law of economics that a company
>> >> will always use lock-in with software. Microshit is the obvious classic of
>> >> course, but every app maker fucks with file formats, Netscape singlehandedly
>> >> fucked up the web, and now Red Hat is trying it.
>> >
>> >Netscape singlehandedly made the Web a household term.
>>
>> Puh-leeze. The Web made Netscape a household term.
>
>Barely anybody except for physicists at CERN would have ever heard of the
>the Web if it wasn't for Andreesen.
And not even those scientists would have herd of Andreesen if not for
the web (http).
>Some friends and I first discovered it in 1993 while using some archie-like
>utility.
>
>"World Wide Web"... my first thought was "wow, SOMEBODY has an ego"
Apparently, you hadn't been following technology for very long. That
'archie-like' utility was probably gopher, and the concept of
hyperlinked distributed documents dates from the sixties, at the latest.
It damn sure was impressive, though, wasn't it, to actually see it all
get put together? Its one thing to use gopher, or even lynx; but to see
a whole presented page from the other side of the globe just pop up in
an X window - that's something.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
