Linux-Advocacy Digest #257, Volume #33 Sun, 1 Apr 01 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Dana")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Roger)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Roger)
Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language? (GreyCloud)
Re: Microsoft has gone insane (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal
Date: 1 Apr 2001 19:16:42 GMT
On Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I'd say it's noteworthy in light of Microsoft's expensive, prime-time
> television ads touting their software's ability to handle anything the
> Internet thows at them. According to these ads, maintaining a gigantic
> internet presence is a piece of cake for W2k.
>
> I mean, if they're not really up to dealing with the large internet
> loads that their software is supposed to handle; where did they get the
> expertise to design the software in the first place?
>
> Seems rather circular to me.
Using the word 'expertise' is the hole in your circle. M$ tends to
design crap: they can mimick OS/2 Warp with crap like W95 but any fool
can tell the difference. They take BSD code to tighten up NT4 and end
up with W2000, still a marginal OS. All that matters is the name on a
pretty graphic, whether magazine or TV. Subliminally it somehow adds
up in the viewers subconscious mind.
>
> MjM
--
Sweepea
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Date: 1 Apr 2001 19:16:47 GMT
On [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter) wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2001 17:02:09 -0600, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> >I mean, if someone was running as root and you mailed them a damaging script
> >and they ran it zapping half their system - would you blame linux? I
> >wouldn't - but you do that to MS...
>
> Strawman ...
> Windows95 and Windows98, still used by millions of people, have NO
> ALTERNATIVE but to run as root.
>
> If your above scenario happened, it would be to a Linux newbie, and I'd
> certainly blame the user, however Windows users (95 and 98) have
> no other option, but to run as root. Hence it's the OS thats to blame in this
> case.
If they came to you I'm sure you would tell them to disable file
extension hiding and also to disable 'vb script' in 'Explorer'. And
not to use that POS email prg Outlook Express but any other in the
list of dozens that are available. And remove double click = 'open' an
exe, .bat, .com, .vbs, .scr, from Explorer. And use a
freeware/shareware firewall for dialup. Etc, etc, just call it
'customization'. That would get about 95% of it.
------------------------------
From: "Dana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 11:46:24 -0800
Scott Erb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Scott Erb wrote:
>
> -snip a bunch of insults and lame attacks-
>
> > FUCK YOU and your LYING PROPAGANDA SPEWING ASS.
>
> I'll keep correcting you with facts, and showing how your claims,
> unsubstantiated and unsupported, are dead wrong.
>
> If you don't like it, feel free to hurl more insults.
>
> > There is no "democratic" about it. We are a Republic. More
> > specifically, we are a CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED REPUBLIC.
>
> The proper term is a Democratic Republic, or, as I explained, a Liberal
> Democracy. You are simply wrong, I've even pointed to books, I can give
> you some more cites if you want.
No Erb, you are the one that is wrong. We are a constitutional republic. We
are not a liberal democracy, that form of socialism is found in Europe in
countries like Germany. And our federalism is not Germany's federalism.
I really hope you are not telling your students these lies.
>
> But since they contradict your silly whims, you'll just call it
> propaganda, and rely on your unsupported assertions. Very lame. But
> very easy to slap down.
>
> > NOWHERE in *ANY* government laws and sort of democratic *anything*
> > allowed at the State or Federal level.
>
> You're wrong. The day for elections is even specified, elections are
> part of democracy. Certainly we don't have pure, crude democracy of
> unlimited majority rule. No one is arguing for that.
And that does not make it a "liberal democracy". When you place liberal in
front of democracy, you change the meaning of what the term means. A liberal
democracy is socialism. Yes we are a democratic nation, and our form of
government is a constitutional republic.
>
> > If you want to run a town, or even a county, as a democracy, you
> > are fully within your rights to do so.
> >
> > But the US Constitution, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, specificies
> > in UNMISTAKABLE language the the United States is a Republic.
>
> A Democratic Republic.
Which is not a liberal democracy.
No matter how much you try, you can't deny that
> the two terms are not contradictory. Republics can take many forms,
> ranging from authoritarian to democratic. This is basic stuff, Aaron.
> Where are you getting your information -- just from your whims?
>
> > Not a "democratic republic"....just a Republic.
> >
> > Popular election of Representatives and Senators does *NOT*
> > a democracy make, nor a Democratic Republic make, so you and
> > your PROPAGANDA NOISE about the US being a "democratic Republic"
> > can go take a flying fucking leap off a cliff.
>
> (chuckle) You're simply wrong. Representative democracy is precisely a
> system where you choose representatives and Senators, and they make
> laws. Our system is partially a representative democracy, though not
> completely, due to the role of the President and Courts. I'm simply
> stating reality. You calling it propaganda with unsubstantiated and
> unsupported (and bizarre) claims only makes you look a tad silly.
>
> > Wrong. The United Kingdom is a Representative Democracy.
> > However, *WE* do not have a parliamentary system, therefore,
> > we are not a Representative Democracy
>
> We're a Presidential system, but also have a legislative branch that is
> indeed a form of representative democracy. It's not a pure form like
> the UK, since the President has specific powers that limit what the
> legislature can do (the whole checks and balances thing).
Which is what you keep on missing.
>
> > To wit, you previously said that the United States is a "democratic
> > republic", and *NOW* you said that it is a "representative
> > democracy".
> >
> > Well, which is it? A Democracy by Representation, or a
> > Republic by Democracy?
>
> Democratic Republics can also be representative democracies. That is
> one way the Republic can be formed. Republics have whatever mechanisms
> and attributes their constitutions create.
>
> Perhaps, rather than simply throwing out strange assertions, you should
> back them and explain precisely what you mean by terms like Republic,
> Democracy, etc. Or is that too HARD for you?
>
> > It can't be BOTH ways.
>
> It certaily can.
>
> > Therefore, I have now demonstrated, by your own definitions,
> > that you lied at least once.
>
> (chuckle) Your word games are only attempts to obfuscate the obvious
> fact you're defending an undefendable position. You need to study these
> things, you're very misguided on some real basics.
Seems you need to study up. Erb you have been proven wrong on this issue so
many times. We are not a liberal democracy, that is what they have in
Germany, and it is a form of socialism.
>
> > Of course...the real truth is that you lied twice. Every time
> > you try to weasel in the word "democracy" to describe our system
> > of government, your are LYING.
> >
> > Remember, Asshole, several MILLION American took an oath to defend
> > the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES against *ALL* enemies, both
> > foreign and domestic.
>
> > People like you, claiming to have a PhD in Political Science, who
> > then go around telling lies like such as above, qualify, in no
> > uncertain terms, as ENEMIES OF THE CONSTITUTION.
> >
> > Make no doubt about it.
> >
> > Some day...when they you're lined up against the wall, and you
> > feel the hot, searing pain of bullets ripping through your body,
> > literally turning the very cells around the entry wound into
> > a worthless pool of slime in the wound cavity....just remember,
> > that I warned you.
>
> Yet by your definition, all our recent Presidents
> who talk about our democracy, all our legislators, all our supreme court
> justices, all who interpret the constitution and our system more like me
> than like you are just as guilty. In fact, by your definition, about
> 95% of the country is an enemy of the constitution!
No Erb, there is a major difference between having democratic elections, and
a liberal democracy. That you fail to see the difference is why you are
wrong.
>
> The rest of your inane babble snipped. You discredit yourself with your
> tirades and pathetic attempts at threats.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
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, 01 Apr 2001 15:07:51 -0500
On Sun, 1 Apr 2001 03:40:40 +0200, someone claiming to be Paul 'Z'
Ewande wrote:
>"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> TAOILHTN.
>What does that mean ?
The Angel Of Irony Laughs Herself To Nosebleed. Originally coined in
alt.revisionism, where one can observe the same type of "you haven't
proved me wrong, so I must be right" logic that T Marx uses, taken a
bit further than he's ever dared to. Its prime practitioner there,
one Joe Bellinger, recently asserted that a certain author had tape
recorded a conversation and transcribed it verbatim. His reasoning
was that the interviewee had not sued the author and so this must be
the case. It was then pointed out to him that by that standard he
himself had "proven" that he was a paedophile. He also claims that a
single lie (an incorrect guess clearly identified as a guess is what
it was,) means that the testimony of a given person must be thrown out
in toto. And that the lack of cross examination means the same.
Anything to avoid addressing the facts as posted.
Rather like T Marx's claim that the "All Rights Reserved" in a
copyright notice does not mean * All * rights, but merely all rights
under Title 17. And cannot point to a single instance of it having
been so interpreted by a court.
You were correct in your guess about "Pardon Me..."
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
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, 01 Apr 2001 15:23:10 -0500
On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 02:47:43 GMT, someone claiming to be T. Max Devlin
wrote:
>>2. So this is an admission that your were (c'mon Max -- you can say
>>it. Begins WR and ends ONG?)
>Oh, totally and absolutely wrong. It was only your delusion that I have
>any problem at all admitting when I was wrong, Roger; I've told you
>that, what, a thousand times before? You would never believe me, of
>course, because you are usually the one who is wrong.
Do you * really * want me to pull out the list that you've run from
every time? The one you ignore and still make this claim? * Every
time * I have been wrong I have publicly acknowledged the fact.
Shall we start with the 127.0.0.1 error? Were you wrong then or not?
>>3. Since this is not the first time I have corrected you on this
>>topic, you knew or should have known that it was incorrect. You stand
>>convicted out of your own mouth once again of lying.
>Like I actually care whether it was you or some other anonymous troller?
>Ha!
No, like you * should * care about honesty and respect.
>>>>>>Of course, what can you expect from a person with so much Internet
>>>>>>experience that he once berated another poster for using his
>>>>>>postmaster's IP address. Said address being 127.0.01.
>>
>>>>>No, that's 127.0.0.1, and it is not "his postmaster's IP address".
>>
>>>>That was rather my point -- you made the claim that it was your PM's
>>>>IP, and that claim formed the basis for your little rant vs. that
>>>>poster.
>>
>>>Look, I really don't see any need to explain it to you again, its
>>>obvious you're not ever going to be smart enough to understand it. Go
>>>read a book on TCP/IP, maybe you'll get lucky.
>>
>>What's to explain (which you never did -- you simply did not
>>acknowledge my "Could someone please explain the significance of
>>127.0.0.1 to Max" comment?) If you feel that there are circumstances
>>which make it less than a complete bonehead mistake to have so ranted,
>>feel free to present them.
>>
>>I'm not holding my breath.
>
>I told you; pick up a book on IP. Your ignorance is not my problem.
'Twas not * my * ignorance. You ranted at another poster that he had
forged your PM's addy, which infraction you were going to report to
zir ISP, if I remember.
* That * is what you have yet to demonstrate was anything but a
bonehead error.
>>>>So perhaps you can list these "vast majority" which used MS-BASIC as
>>>>the sole OS (or even as a standard feature) along with sales figures
>>>>to show that they comprise such a majority. Or you can admit that
>>>>your rhetoric was overblown once again and you got called on it.
>>>Who said it needs to be a "vast majority"?
>>Umm. You did: "The vast majority of all microcomputers developed in
>>the early 80s used Microsoft's ROM BASIC"
>The vast majority of models, not the necessarily the vast majority of
>computers. Note your category error.
Note your lie: "The vast majority of *** all microcomputers ***
developed in the early 80s used Microsoft's ROM BASIC" (emphasis
mine.)
Your words. Your error. Will you admit it?
>>>Who said it had to be the sole OS?
>>So, it is your contention that MS-BASIC was a monopoly in spite of
>>plenty of competition and in spite of not being the most prevalent OS.
>>Do tell...
>I did, yes. Now, you may feel free to attempt to refute it, though I
>doubt you can, since you are (I know from experience) rather ignorant of
>what "a monopoly" is.
When you post some * facts * in support of this fantasy, rest assured
I shall. Until then, it suffices to say you are wrong, offering
exactly the same level of substantiation as you -- with the added
credibility that I do not feel the need to lie about what I have said.
>>>You haven't even looked into it, have you? You certainly
>>>don't have any facts to dispute the issue, or I assumed you'd have
>>>posted them.
>>I'm not the one that asserted. The burden of proof is on you.
>No burden, no. I asserted; the support was coincident with the
>assertion, regardless of how weak you may think it was. But then again,
>you haven't refuted it at all, so I guess it wasn't very weak, eh?
No, the assertion was coincident with the assertion. The only support
was an implied appeal to your own non-existent authority.
>>>So, other than pointing out your *complete inability* to
>>>refute my statement (which is both sufficient and necessary to account
>>>for observable facts), you're just pissing in the wind, aren't you,
>>>Roger?
>>TAOILHTN.
>>
>>Are you * sure * you're not Joe Bellinger or vice versa?
>>
>>IOW -- what are * your * facts supporting your claim that MS had a
>>monopoly on OSes before the IBM PC?
>The fact that the vast majority of consumer microcomputers in the early
>1980s used MS-BASIC.
1. You have yet to show that this is fact.
2. Now we're back to "consumer microcomputers" and not just models,
are we?
>I thought I said that already.
Sure, you said it. You're being asked to support it with facts.
>Feel free to
>provide something more convincing to the contrary, if you can. It
>shouldn't be too hard, it's not like my claim is very convincing.
Backpedalling already? You post your proof first, if you feel you
can. I am prepared to refute it when you do.
>Still, simply denying that it is so is less convincing, despite the
>discomfort that this causes you.
<T Marx> Because I Said So! </T Marx>
How does that go again, little m?
<cue patter of little feet>
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal
Date: 1 Apr 2001 20:47:38 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > I'd say it's noteworthy in light of Microsoft's expensive, prime-time
: > television ads touting their software's ability to handle anything the
: > Internet thows at them. According to these ads, maintaining a gigantic
: > internet presence is a piece of cake for W2k.
: >
: > I mean, if they're not really up to dealing with the large internet
: > loads that their software is supposed to handle; where did they get the
: > expertise to design the software in the first place?
: >
: > Seems rather circular to me.
: Using the word 'expertise' is the hole in your circle. M$ tends to
: design crap: they can mimick OS/2 Warp with crap like W95 but any fool
Oh how I love posts like this.
Now, please explain exactly how Windows95 mimicks
OS/2 Warp. Please explain exactly how Open32 is
related to Win32 in any way, shape, or form.
: can tell the difference. They take BSD code to tighten up NT4 and end
: up with W2000, still a marginal OS. All that matters is the name on a
Really now. I would also ask how in the hell
you've determined that Microsoft has merely
implemented some 4.4BSD code in order to
get Windows2000. Do you have access to the
WindowsNT v4.0 and v5.0 source trees?
Oh, silly me, of course you don't. Therefore,
you're talking out of a certain oriface.
Perhaps you're also one of those kooks who
claims that WindowsNT is based on OS/2 code
that Microsoft stole from IBM. Oh gee, I
hope you are... people such as you are so
much fun to hang out to dry.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language?
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 13:49:44 -0700
gbp wrote:
>
> >There are many RISC processors out there, HP PA-RISC, IBM 603-604
> series
> >RISC, MIPS, Sparc, Alpha and a few others I can't recall. Intel is
> the
> >only one I know of still clinging to CISC ideas.
> >The list goes on. Why do you think so many computer companies have
> >favored RISC then?
>
> Its my understanding that intel considers itself to be essentially
> _stuck_ with CISC since existing PC software depends on the CISC
> intruction set of the 386+. So since they already were firmly in
> the CISC camp their designers added even more (a lot more!)
> instructions to the chips to try to improve them that way.
>
> These improvements assume that compilers will take advantage of all
> these instructions. In their case it seems like a fairly safe bet.
Thats a good point. I'd much prefer a compiler thats been time tested
without having the cpu vendor keep adding on more instructions that will
eventually obsolete my compiler. The down side to CISC is the amount of
silicon real-estate needed for all these instructions, ending up instead
with a space heater. Remember the 6502? Most of its instructions
completed in 1 or 2 clock cycles and a few in 3. The apple II doing
graphics did a fair job at 1Mhz in those days. I think Intel is the
only cpu vendor left using CISC.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft has gone insane
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 13:51:08 -0700
jtnews wrote:
>
> They're getting desperate.
>
> Mozilla is getting pretty close
> to being a viable substitute for
> Internet Explorer.
>
> When this happens, this will eliminate
> the need for me to startup windows
> just to use a silly web browser.
> (Netscape 4.7x crashes too often
> with Java applets)
> The only reason I need to use
> Windows now is to start a web browser
> because most sites only support
> Internet Explorer.
>
> Chad Everett wrote:
> >
> > Hey! Just another indication that Microsoft wants to charge
> > you for every bit that goes in or out of your computer,
> > PDA, cell phone, satellite dish, toaster, and on and on.
> >
> > Can you say "HailStorm"?
> >
> > Don't believe me? Read this:
> >
> > See http://www.internetweek.com/newslead01/lead032901.htm
Do you know where I can get Mozilla for Solaris 8 x86??
--
V
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
