Linux-Advocacy Digest #951, Volume #33 Thu, 26 Apr 01 14:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh! ("JS PL")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Exploit devastates WinNT/2K security (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (T. Max Devlin)
Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:43:27 -0400
Chad Everett wrote:
>
> On 26 Apr 2001 13:54:24 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:44:27 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:42:35 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 02:24:23 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >"Roberto Alsina"
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >> After immigrating I could become a citizen. Yet you said I "will
> >>> >> >> >> never become a juror". That is not something you can possibly know,
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >Tell us all when you do become a juror within any jurisdiction in the USA.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Let me guess... I immigrate, I naturalize, then I get called, eventually,
> >>> >> >> and not disqualify myself, then I am not disqualified during jury
>selection.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >how much did you bribe the INS people to naturalizes you, you ignorant twit.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Who told you I naturalized?
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >So, you admit that you have never passed the naturalization test,
> >>> >which requires you to demonstrate that you understand the Constition
> >>> >(which includes the 2nd Amendment)
> >>>
> >>> What's a constition? Anyway, I am not bound by your constitution,
> >>> knowing it is not important.
> >>
> >>You claim to be in the United States.
> >
> >Quotes please. I am not, and have not been, in several years, in the US.
> >In fact, I am pretty far from the US.
> >
> >Roberto Alsina
>
> He's in Argentina.
But he makes constant PRETENSES that he is in the US.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Subject: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:46:15 -0400
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9c7imi$ce7e1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > True. Still, Microsoft has only started to realize the value of
> > the UNIX style, and their software still is amazingly buggy for
> > a company that supposedly devotes a lot of resources to testing.
> >
>
> Yes - but MS's definition of testing is selling a product and seeing how
> many users have problems - then fixing those problems and selling the
users
> aother untested 'upgrade' and repeating the process.
Sure it is. That's why just about the only company I hear of nowadays that
is releasing test beta versions of their software is...you guessed
it....Microsoft. If I'm not mistaken, every major build of Whistler is being
continualy released, as well as major builds of office software, Visual
Studio.net, Exchange.....
Developers are included in Microsoft software every step of the way.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/resources/subdwnld.asp
File this under "Another anti-MS FUD attempt, debunked"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 26 Apr 2001 17:47:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:43:27 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chad Everett wrote:
>>
>> >>You claim to be in the United States.
>> >
>> >Quotes please. I am not, and have not been, in several years, in the US.
>> >In fact, I am pretty far from the US.
Notice how here I explicitly say I am not in the US.
>> >Roberto Alsina
>>
>> He's in Argentina.
>
>But he makes constant PRETENSES that he is in the US.
Aaron, find ONE post from me where I say I am in the US.
You are confusing me with one of your other personalities.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:54:26 GMT
>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>>
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>> >>
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>> >> >>
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>> >> >> >>
Aaron> Brent R wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > Modern feminism decries "the patriarchy", and then whines for
>> >> >> >> >> > it to come back and clean up her diapers, because she still hasn't
>> >> >> >> >> > learned to shit in the toilet.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Jesus man, do you really have to be that crude?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Be careful Aaron, not all women are like that, I wouldn't even say
the
>> >> >> >>
Aaron> I wasn't referring to "all women" is was referring to that body
Aaron> known as "feminism"
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No, you are talking about a tiny minority of those women who
>> >> >> >> self-identify as feminist. For most women that means that women
>> >> >> >> have equal rights as men. Not the lunatic fringe that declare
>> >> >> >> all heterosexual sex is rape.
>> >> >>
Aaron> Thank you for agreeing with me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So you think most women that call themselves feminists
>> >> >> are not really feminists?
>> >>
Aaron> Most American women who don't even call themselves feminists have a SEVERE
Aaron> "women should be able to take anything a man has, and give nothing
Aaron> in return" attitude.
>>
Aaron> Those who do call themselves feminist advocate the use of kangaroo
Aaron> courts to accomplish it.
>>
>> >> You did not answer my questions.
>>
>> >> I am sorry your experience of American women has
>> >> been so poor.
>>
Aaron> Actually, my own PERSONAL experience has been ok. However, one does
Aaron> not need to personally experience divorce, etc. to know how badly the
Aaron> guys get shafted....all you need to do is pay attention to what is
Aaron> happening to all of the other men around you.
>>
>> I do. I have personally seen no bad cases. All the divorces
>> I personally know about were settled on child support, not
>> alimony. And in the cases where the woman was the larger breadwinner
>> and joint or paternal custody, the woman paid the child support.
>>
>> >> I personally know no women that are at all like
>> >> the ones you seem to think are most American women.
>>
Aaron> You must live in a cave.
>>
>> Nope, but perhaps I hang with a better crowd than you do.
Aaron> This is your way of saying that you don't associate with American women...
No, I did not say that at all, and I associate frequently with
dozens of them, and have associated with hundreds over my ~30
year adult life.
>> >> I have read about some, so I do know they exist. However
>> >> based on personal experience I conclude that they are rare.
Aaron> Come out of your cave, ahole...
>> Hang with a better crowd.
Aaron> I do. I quit associating with American women.
Before you said you had not had bad personal experiences
with American women. Do try to be consistent.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:55:33 GMT
Said MH in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:01:20 GMT;
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9bkl22$55$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:qRfD6.255$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > > In what way is NS4 insecure? IE has almost as many security bugs found
>> as
>> > > IIS. Over 100 security bugs found in Microsoft SW in 2000!
>> >
>> > Does it matter?! NS4 is a web browser which doesn't support HTML. By
>it's
>> > own specification it should have been bang up to the HTML4.0 provisional
>> > specification which was available when it was released. Yeah, we could
>> > forgive them if they went by HTML3 and then updated it, but to leave a
>> > browser that is completely incapable around for more than a year is
>> > disgusting... It can't even do the very very basic stuff correctly. It
>> comes
>> > to something when a browser company's web site looks distinctly better
>and
>> > is more readable in their competitor's product.
>> >
>> > They coded the site themselves so obviously there is no secret "way
>> around"
>> > these problems, the support simply isn't there...
>> >
>>
>> An *extremely* good point.
>
>Until it collides head first with 'cola logic', at which point it will be
>summarily dismissed as troll bait.
>As most, if not all facts are in cola.
As a long-time user of NS4, I would say it is definitely not troll bait.
Its just plain old bullshit.
--
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
Subject: Re: Exploit devastates WinNT/2K security
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:55:38 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:11:22
>On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:38:16 +1200, Matthew Gardiner
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Microsoft love re-inventing the wheel over and over again. There was a
>> perfectly adequate file sharing protocol, called NFS which all UNIX's
>
>NFS is not really suitable for the kind of peer-to-peer file sharing
>that MS wanted to do. If you have root on your own machine, you can
>easily read all the other files off the NFS server.
Horse manure.
>The NFS security model works ok for an environment where users are on
>terminals (X or plain) hanging off one of a group of mainframes that
>are all under central administration. It is lousy for a PC-style
>computing environment.
Hogwash.
--
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: soc.singles,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:55:43 GMT
Said Nomen Nescio in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:40:43
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina) eeped:
>> Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On 20 Apr 2001 20:37:40 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>Nomen Nescio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey) paused from prancing about in frilly
>> >>>undergarments long enough to stick a gerbil in his bum and write:
>> >>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nomen Nescio
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >> you're getting far too wound up for usenet, it's not that important, take a
>> >>>> >> few valium and relax. It'll all seem better in the morning.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >you write like a homosexual
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You write like someone who doubts their sexuality, it's normally the ones in
>> >>>> the closet who go around calling everyone else homosexual.
>> >>>
>> >>>that's something homosexuals say
>> >>
>> >>Only insecure people care about others' tastes.
>> >
>> >Give him a break. He's a welfare recipient.
>>
>> Who cares?
>
>my victims
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
Jackie thinks he's got "victims". Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
--
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: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:55:47 GMT
Said User Rdkeys Robert D. Keys in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 18 Apr 2001
15:15:24 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jon Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Here are some files from a Windows 2000 Professional system along with
>>> the copyright strings that are contained in them:
>>>
>>> C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\finger.exe
>>> @(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
>>> C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\nslookup.exe
>>> @(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.
>>> C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\rcp.exe
>>> @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
>>> C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\rsh.exe
>>> @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
>>> C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\FTP.EXE
>>> @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
>>>
>
>> Yer right - look at that. Proof from a linvocate - sorry, that caught me off
>> guard.
>
>> big deal - you don't really consider those commands significant to the rest
>> of W2K do you?
>
>Absolutely. Those commands and the structures upon which they ride
>form the basis of the Internet. It is interesting that the copyrights
>are so old on those. Mine, from UNIX, have dates in the mid 90's.
>MS using old software again..... could pose security issues.
>I am not a Linux advocate, but work with all forms of UNIX.
>But, I could not resist the reply, since files like the above
>are fundmental to the Internet. I am assuming Gatesware still
>wants to play on the internet?
Now that the trolling has died down on this issue, I'd like to crank up
the actual discussion a bit, if yuz think yuze can handle it.
The issue started by noting that Microsoft uses code copyrighted under
the BSD license in a number of command line executables. A Windroid
said "so?", Aaron the Kookalitis said "try using a computer without
them", and the trolls started the feeding frenzy on that note, pointing
out that the command line executables are generally not used except by
experts.
All of this went back and forth as will happen when Aaron is involved,
as he tends to be about as daft as the average Windroid, and almost as
childish as jackie tokemon. Hopefully the rest of us can avoid stirring
up those ashes while considering the issue rationally, as should have
happened the first time.
If MS is using early 80s code in the exe's, what reason does anyone have
to believe that they are doing any different within "Windows" itself,
and whatever dlls and vxds and crap actually provides the name
resolution, ftp support, and similar functionality. "These programs
aren't used, the Win32 app just makes a call..." is an obvious
smoke-screen, but where there is smoke there is fire. Can ANYBODY think
of ANY reason to believe a large portion of Microsoft Internet software
should not have ">>> @(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the
University of California." or similar all over the source code?
This is W2K PRO (!) we're talking about, remember, with 1980 tools.
What kind of scenario could explain the situation?
A) MS uses the old code only in their executables, the OS/platform
function calls use all new code. So why doesn't MS replace these CLI
tools with wrappers to those calls, like they did with Write/WordPad?
B) MS uses the old code in the executables, new code in the OS, and
doesn't replace the tools with wrappers because it is not necessary to
do anything accept maintain the monopoly, when you are a monopoly, and
so improving the product doesn't happen.
C) MS uses the old code in the executables, new code in the OS, and
really only included the executables for 'backwards compatibility' (See
'B' if you consider 'backward compatibility' in this regard to be simply
the presumed level of functionality expected by any experienced user) so
it doesn't matter if they just threw on old code.
D) MS uses the old code in both, which means portions of W2K PRO (!) are
copyright 1980 under the BSD license. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! So much for
'new and improved'.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:55:51 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 19 Apr 2001 05:09:49
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >All it takes is some competition.
>> >The GPL encourages the continued monopoly by making it impossible
>> >to use GPL'd code in combination with other components by a
>> >competitive startup.
>>
>> Yea, right; that's going to fly as a logical premise. Looks a lot like
>> "GPL is evil" as stated by MS, only they don't say it continues any
>> monopoly. They are prepared to deny the monopoly as much as you are
>> prepared to deny the contribution that non-GPL "free" software has made
>> to that monopoly.
>
>Count the examples of products that offered competition to the
>developing monopoly that contained free-but-not-GPL'd code
>(Sun's products for example). Now count the ones that contained
>GPL'd code and compare them.
Why? Sun was getting its ass kicked for more than a decade by MS
shenanigans. Now that Linux is the most popular non-monopoly OS around,
you're going to claim that their obviously capitalist use of non-GPL
software somehow casts doubts on GPL? Again, you're simply arguing that
it is somehow better for 'production' of software, but the only
'examples' you can provide by way of gedanken experiments to prove your
theory is the use of more commercially exploitable licenses to promote
commercial sales. Forgetting, again, that, yes, commercial sale of
licenses is precisely what the GPL is INTENDED to accomplish. The
"products that offered competition to the []* monopoly" that are non-GPL
(regardless of any other putative feature of their license**) might very
well ALWAYS outnumber the GPL codebases, since there is need for only
one GPL codebase to begin with, and it lends itself to services more
than products, by design, again.
>> And then you're going to pretend that it is the GPL's
>> fault? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. I honestly used to think you had a real
>> argument, Les.
>
>Let me know if you actually come up with an example where you
>think GPL'd code was used in something that could have prevented
>the monopoly from developing. I can't think of a single one.
Actually, you've already cited dozens yourself, I would say, by claiming
that BSD availability of fundamentally important codebases (any Internet
protocol, for starters) DIDN'T contribute to the development of the
monopoly.
No code no matter how designed could have "prevented the monopoly from
developing" to begin with, this is a fantasy which you have but I don't
share. The 'development'* of the monopoly is not a matter of software
and code, it is effected by anti-competitive strategies quite distinct
from any technical or commercial merit of the product itself.
*To even consider what 'developing' monopoly might mean, we would have
to agree on what it is, and I'm not sure we do. I happen to believe
that the monopoly MS now enjoys was 'developed' in the late 1970s and
very early 1980s, being fully established if unnoticed before 1985, and
the company has never produced a product which competed on its merits.
**You are obviously using the term 'free' to mean 'open source', but
I'll remind you that we are not talking about open source software when
we are discussing the BSD code which is even now part of Windows2000
Pro, so it seems rather disingenuous to call it 'free' when it is not
only used in Sun's product, but the monopoly crapware, as well, which
must be considered about as opposite from 'free' as any software can
get. Heard about MS's new non-US hotmail license?
--
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
******************************
