Linux-Advocacy Digest #474, Volume #34 Sun, 13 May 01 11:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Economist and Open-Source (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Linux in college & high school ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Economist and Open-Source ("Erik Funkenbusch")
What does Linux need for the desktop? (mlw)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Win 9x is horrid ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Jeffrey L. Cooper)
Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft (Charles Lyttle)
Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft (Charles Lyttle)
Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft (Charles Lyttle)
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley)
Re: wow!! Windows XP allows one computer to access another!! (Roy Culley)
LOMAC shocks Microsoft! (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Economist and Open-Source
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 14:28:10 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <sShL6.647$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > They have to regression test each patch thoroughly before releasing it.
> > > With Linux, someone will hack a quick fix together and release it, not
> > > caring a bit about testing it. Then, as the developers have time, they
> > > create a decent fix, which happens in about the same timeframe that MS
> > > takes.
> >
> > Then why are so many security bugs reported in bugtraq due to Microsoft
> > patches? Regression testing indeed. I would say that there are about
> > 25% patches to previous patches reported by Microsoft on bugtraq.
>
> Regression testing only tells you if you've recreated a previous bug, not if
> you've created a new one.
>
> Perhaps if you understood what "regression" means, you'd know that.
I know what regression testing means. If it doesn't catch new bugs
introduced by your change, you did the test wrong. I get really ticked
at people who think they can get away with just doing a minimal test(the
code compiles and the old bug didn't show up in 10minutes) and call it
regression test.
Of course the drudges don't like to seem me comming to test their work.
They know I'm going to find some obscure interaction between their code
and the rest of the system to test :)))
We need a new name for people who just sit and collect pay checks doing
the minimal amount of uncreative work on software. "Hack" was the old
term, but that is too similar to the word "Hacker" which has a definate
meaning of quality.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux in college & high school
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 14:28:49 GMT
Linux is big at the colleges near where I live but only in the
CS/Engineering depts.
For the most part the rest of the student body is using MS or to a
surprising degree Apple. The PowerBooks are quite popular out here,
which surprised me.
flatfish
On Sun, 13 May 2001 00:56:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, mmnnoo
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Fri, 11 May 2001 03:03:47 GMT
><nEIK6.60080$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Here's a list of the machines in the computer science dept
>>at the University of New Mexico:
>>
>>http://www.cs.unm.edu/~ssg/SSG_Hardware/byos
>>
>>any questions?
>
>I will note for the record that a large number of the machines
>are running Debian 2.2, a few are running IRIX, and, of the
>more than 80 machines listed there, only 4 are known to run any
>variant of Windows (there are two unknowns). And one of them --
>versaka-vm -- is cheating by using VMWare. :-)
>
>This according to a quick scan of the article. Impressive, actually.
>I'm kinda curious as to the manpower required to install and maintain
>all this machinery, and how that manpower would compare to a
>similar-sized lab running pure NT/W2k equipment.
>
>>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Corbell"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm looking for leads to information, statistics, or just individual
>>> testimonials about the use of Linux in educational settings,
>>> particularly in high school, community college, university, and grad
>>> school settings. Does anyone out there know of any general sources of
>>> information on the use of Linux in these settings? I would especially
>>> be interested in the use of Linux in math & science education. Also,
>>> I'd like to know about any advocacy groups, PC 'salvage' groups or
>>> similar organizations that are active in getting Linux used in schools.
>>>
>>> Thanks for any info.
>>> - Christopher
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Economist and Open-Source
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 09:50:48 -0500
"Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <sShL6.647$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > > They have to regression test each patch thoroughly before releasing
it.
> > > > With Linux, someone will hack a quick fix together and release it,
not
> > > > caring a bit about testing it. Then, as the developers have time,
they
> > > > create a decent fix, which happens in about the same timeframe that
MS
> > > > takes.
> > >
> > > Then why are so many security bugs reported in bugtraq due to
Microsoft
> > > patches? Regression testing indeed. I would say that there are about
> > > 25% patches to previous patches reported by Microsoft on bugtraq.
> >
> > Regression testing only tells you if you've recreated a previous bug,
not if
> > you've created a new one.
> >
> > Perhaps if you understood what "regression" means, you'd know that.
> I know what regression testing means. If it doesn't catch new bugs
> introduced by your change, you did the test wrong. I get really ticked
> at people who think they can get away with just doing a minimal test(the
> code compiles and the old bug didn't show up in 10minutes) and call it
> regression test.
Why would a new bug show up in a regression test? Personally, I think that
if you catch a new bug in a regression test, you're either lucky, or not
performing the regression test correctly. You can't detect the bug unless
you're looking for it.
Sure, you can test your inputs and outputs, but that won't tell you if you
Lotus notes is gonna break because it assumes that a return value means
something it's not documented to mean.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 10:40:57 -0400
OK, I hear people say that Linux is not ready for the desktop. I always wonder
why. OK, I'll concede games, but that is a different story all together. For
now, lets focus on the office/home office desktop, i.e. what would keep a
company from going all Linux?
Having these answers in a neat little HOWTO (How To run your company on Linux)
would be sort of cool.
========================
42 was the answer, 49 was too soon.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 14:36:41 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dlh6l$jro$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> When do you have to configuer print filters in Linux or Unix?
> >
> > When you want to benefit from the flexibility of print filters,
> > naturally!
> >
> > If you just want prefab stuff, then it appears drivers will do fine.
>
> I insist now that you declare your ignorance of the UNIX print system.
Why?
> Repeat after me:
>
> It is not windows and it does not work like windows.
I know that. I think I appreciate the advantages
a Unix-style print system provides better
than you do; you seem to think it's only "advantage"
is being gratuitously different from Windows.
That's not really so.
> OK? Got that?
>
> Right, here's how it works (briefly: there are more levels):
>
> When you print a file, the file is sent to the printer daemon.
Leaving off the bit where it gets rendered into PostScript,
I see. One of the big problems of the Unix print system
is that it leaves off this bit; it's just the application's
problem.
> The deamon
> then applies filters to the file and then sends the filtered file to a
> driver program and finally out to the printer.
The "driver program" is a filter itself, is it not?
> Without the filters, the drivers would have to be called by hand by every
> app printing.
Hardly. There are other ways to do it; Windows drivers,
for instance, do not need to be called by hand.
Heck, even in Unix without filters you could have a
'print' shellscript that would do some of the same
things with data piped to it.
> For instance, if plain PS arrives, the filter will recognise this and
> pass it to GhostScript telling GS what device to generate output for (eg
> PCL5).
>
> If a PDF file comes in the filter may pass it through Adobe's acroread
> instead (I find it is rather better than GS) and tghen pass the output of
> that to GS for final rendering before printing.
>
> If a TeX DVI file arrives, the filters fill recognise this, and filter it
> with dvips, and then passs the PS output to GS.
There is a well known prefab filter that does that, and
by all acounts it makes Unix printing a lot more
civilized.
But that's by no means the limit of what filters can do;
if that was was all they did it would hardly be worth
the effort.
> In all these cases, GS is the final step and sends the output to /dev/lp?
> (forgetting network printers for the moment).
>
> So, the drivers and filters all work together and the only good systems
> use both at once.
That's seems rather narrow. Why do you say that?
I don't think anyone yet has a way to use filters
that doesn't restrict the flow of information to
one direction only. In some markets, it's important
to be able to get information to go back to the
app.
And in some markets, custom filters are not
practical.
In those markets, calling the Unix print
system one of the "only good systems" is
rather hard to sustain.
> If you set them up with Printtool (for instance) you need never know
> anything about them ever.
Sure, but in that case you get the disadvantages with
the advantages. Why would you want to do that?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 14:36:55 GMT
On Sun, 13 May 2001 08:59:20 -0400, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I've had some bad experiences with the latest Real Player on Win ME.
>True, Real Player is garbage anyways, but still, here goes. Every time
>I use Real Player on Win ME, it crashes right in the middle of a certain
>clip. Every time I try to start Real Player after the crash, it fails
>to start, unless I reboot. If I try to play the same clip, the whole
>episode repeats itself. Apparently, it manages to violate a certain
>part of application memory with the crash in the same exact location,
>and I can't restart RP unless I reboot.
The quickest way to render a perfectly stable system instable is to
install RealPlayer.
That thing is a freaking octopus with tentacles that reach into the
inner bowels of the registry and dll directory installing crap all
over the place.
The first clue that you are about to be screwed is trying to navigate
their website and download the free version. It must direct you 5
times to the pay version before you finally get the download going.
And then no matter how many times you turn off the automatic upgrade
feature, it still re-checks the box well before the 30 day period I
might add.
That program is the closest thing to a virus I have seen.
Flatfish
>I have RP 8 for Linux installed on my FreeBSD box. The thing looks ugly
>as hell compared to the Windows version, and it won't do full screen.
>But, hell, the thing is a Linux binary, running on FreeBSD, and not only
>doesn't the thing crash, but it won't screw up my application memory
>like it does under Windows.
>
>Pretty sad when I can run a Linux binary under FreeBSD, and it won't
>even run under Windows. The moral of the story is: the programs look
>ugly under FreeBSD and Linux, but at least they work, and they won't
>fsck up the OS to boot.
>
>I could get slightly better performance under Windows, with full-screen
>capability. None of that matters if you can't keep the app/OS running.
>It wouldn't be so bad if I could just restart it, but it won't restart,
>because obviously a part of the app is still lingering in memory, but it
>isn't showing up when I do control+alt+delete, so I can't kill the app.
>That brings up another point about Windows' suckiness: the job control
>is horrid compared to unix systems. I'd be willing to bet that Win NT's
>or 2000's job control isn't much better than 9X.
>
>Don't know 'bout you guys, but I won't be waiting for XP anytime soon.
>Why wait when a superior OS is already here for free? The only strong
>point of Windows is application availability, period.
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey L. Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 10:39:30 -0400
I could care less about the Office suites since they are all fine. I
would be most interested in Adobe apps being released for Linux.
On Sun, 13 May 2001 22:41:03 +1200, Matthew Gardiner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>He (Erik) is also the one who proclaims the fact that Linux has few
>commercial apps, when what he is really saying is that since Microsoft
>Office is not on it, it obviously sucks. Several people have also
>questioned why StarOffice, or its sucessor, OpenOffice, can't be used as
>a MSOffice substitute, yet he fails to elaborate on why this cannot be
>done.
>
>Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 14:40:28 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > COM was a great boon for developers, able to share compiled bits of
> code
> > > > > written in different languages, and allowing apps to communicate
> with
> > > each
> > > > > other easily. On linux, CORBA has barely taken off in the ActiveX
> > > emulation
> > > > > project (Gnome) 5 years behind microsoft. On the microsoft
> platform,
> > > COM
> > > > > and ActiveX are being tossed into the legacy bin as the common
> language
> > > > > runtime is being rolled out. The common language runtime (and MSIL
> > > > > instruction set) is a huge boon for developers and users and an open
> > > > > standard (ECMA). COM, CORBA, and ActiveX are all junk compared to
> the
> > > > > common language runtime. The user experience and developer
> experience
> > > will
> > > > > be so much better with the common language runtime (part of .net on
> the
> > > > > windows platform).
> > > >
> > > > Linux developers aren't stupid enough to try to copy COM. At least I
> > > > hope not.
> > >
> > > Funny you should say that. Mozilla heavily uses a COM clone they call
> XPCOM
> > > (cross platform COM i guess), and IIRC Bonobo is also based on COM's
> design
> > > as well.
> > >
> > Anyone have links to explain the similarities/differences between MS COM
> > and XPCOM? XPCOM can't be a direct clone of MS COM. That won't work
> > under Linux except for root. XPCOM would have to be more similar to DSOM
> > or the Java model.
>
> Huh? Why wouldn't a clone of COM work under a normal user? There is no
> reason why it wouldn't.
To install shared objects on a system the application has to have root
privilages. Not a good idea. But you can use a subset of COM that would
work on a per user basis. But you can't separate that out under MS.
XPCOM could be such a limited subset. I don't know.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 14:43:50 GMT
Doug Ransom wrote:
>
> > "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > COM was a great boon for developers, able to share compiled bits of
> code
> > > > written in different languages, and allowing apps to communicate with
> > each
> > > > other easily. On linux, CORBA has barely taken off in the ActiveX
> > emulation
> > > > project (Gnome) 5 years behind microsoft. On the microsoft platform,
> > COM
> > > > and ActiveX are being tossed into the legacy bin as the common
> language
> > > > runtime is being rolled out. The common language runtime (and MSIL
> > > > instruction set) is a huge boon for developers and users and an open
> > > > standard (ECMA). COM, CORBA, and ActiveX are all junk compared to the
> > > > common language runtime. The user experience and developer experience
> > will
> > > > be so much better with the common language runtime (part of .net on
> the
> > > > windows platform).
> > >
> > > Linux developers aren't stupid enough to try to copy COM. At least I
> > > hope not.
>
> Well, COM is better than not having shared components. COM adds great value
> to the Windows environment. It allows devlopers to build great things. COM
> and the fact it is ubiqutious on Windows are what makes Windows worth more
> than Linux.
It is what makes Windows a security nightmare and totaly useless if you
value your business.
>I am currently willing to pay nothing for linux and hundreds
> for windows 2K. However, Corba & COM are basically the same and both kind
> of suck in the same way. The Microsoft Common Language Runtime (or whatever
> its ECMA equivelent is) sucks not.
>
I agree that CORBA and COM both have kind of suck in the same way.
CORBA can be used for secure implementations though.
> >
> > Funny you should say that. Mozilla heavily uses a COM clone they call
> XPCOM
> > (cross platform COM i guess), and IIRC Bonobo is also based on COM's
> design
> > as well.
> >
> > > > Does anyone know of any efforts to support the common language runtime
> > on
> > > > linux? That would make the platform so much better and development of
> > new
> > > > stuff much quicker.
> > >
> > > I did find a couple of sites that I don't think were jokes on the
> > > subject. Mostly Linux seems to be leaning toward CORBA-SOM-DSOM.
> Comparing CORBA to Microsoft Common Language Runtime is like comparing
> MS-DOS to Linux.
> CORBA isn't anywhere near as useful.
>
> > > Especially as IBM is putting lots of money into the arena.
> >
> > Is SOM/DSOM available for Linux?
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 14:45:34 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Doug Ransom wrote:
>
> > COM was a great boon for developers, able to share compiled bits of code
> > written in different languages, and allowing apps to communicate with each
> > other easily.
>
> ROFTL.
>
> You're kidding right?
>
> COM's means of using a 'binary contract' to allow different programming
> languages to communicate is a result of short-sightedness of the part of
> Microsoft.
>
> At Digital, we had a common OBJ file format etc. so that all languages
> could be used together without noticing any differences. We had one project
> that had C, Pascal, Fortran and PL/1 - all generating OBJ files that could
> all be linked together.
>
> On Windows we've never had that luxury. Microsoft jealously guarded the
> format of their OBJ format, so companies like Borland couldn't steal their
> thunder. The result? Multiple different formats - even with languages from
> Microsoft.
>
> COM brought all this together, and added a whole slew of other stuff too.
>
Its the "whole slew of other stuff" that is the problem.
> --
> Pete
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 14:45:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw wrote:
>OK, I hear people say that Linux is not ready for the desktop. I always wonder
>why. OK, I'll concede games, but that is a different story all together. For
>now, lets focus on the office/home office desktop, i.e. what would keep a
>company from going all Linux?
>
>Having these answers in a neat little HOWTO (How To run your company on Linux)
>would be sort of cool.
>
>------------------------
>42 was the answer, 49 was too soon.
Over half of small business here in OKC is 100 % linuxfied as of now.
You need a word application so they use either Star Office or Word Perfect.
Mainly Word Perfect.
You need a web browser, Linux has netscape and Mozilla.
You need an SQL database. Linux has Postgres.
You need a web server. Linux has the industry standard Apache!
You need E-mail handing. Linux has so many it's hard to count.
You need a program like Viseo! Use Dia!
You write in VB. Use Kylix!
Linux has built in compilers, perl, python, and java.
Linux has built in version control.
Linux can replace a backoffice server.
Linux can replace a print server.
Linux has fewer security problems on the internet.
Linux is thousands and thousands of dollars cheaper!
Linux has more periodic updates to the OS. A typical distribution
releases a new version every 4-6 months.
Some Linux versions like Debian have automatic security update capabilities
which means as soon as a patched security problem is released, it's installed
on your machine. No relying on some System Administrator to do his job.
Linux has dozens of HTML authoring tools.
You can build satellite distributions using LInux to help expand
your corporate empire.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 16:00:33 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <9dlt99$s69$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <9dkm78$h8j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >> > *Shrug*, Linux's API are open, show me the browser that can compete
> with
>> > IE,
>> >> > please.
>> >>
>> >> Show me one that cant.
>> >
>> > We can *start* with netscape.
>> > But that wasn't the question, is there any browser out there that is as
> good
>> > or better than IE?
>> > Answer this.
>>
>> Well I don't use Microsoft OS's either at work or at home. I have only
>> used the IE that Microsoft ported to SunOS (only runs on one specific
>> version of SunOS by the way!). It was the slowest crappiest browser I
>> have ever used. So I can truly say that netscape, mozilla and opera (these
>> are the only browsers I have used) are far superior browsers to IE.
>
> In other words, you used the worst instance of IE that you could find,
> knowing full well that when I, and everybody else, talk about IE, we talk
> about IE on x86 on Windows.
> Go to a friend with windows and see what it's *really* like.
> *Then* come back and tell me what browser is better than it.
Have you read the Microsoft web page where they describe the
development of IE on Solaris? It was supposed to be a tremendous
technical achievement against all the obstacles that an Unix OS
provides for development. I think my comparison is more than justified
considering the FUD on that web page.
--
Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
looking any better.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Subject: Re: wow!! Windows XP allows one computer to access another!!
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 16:04:34 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
kirck@-- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> wow!! just saw the new XP announcment, it is trully amazing what
> this new windows XP can do, read all about it:
>
> "It also allows an authorized person on one computer to access
> another computer over the Internet to fix problems."
>
> How do they do this? amazing. Accessing one computer from another?
> and by no other than an aiuthorized person also? wow.
>
> "Microsoft will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to promote
> the new product, set to be released Oct. 25. The campaign will cost
> twice as much as the amount spent to advertise Windows 95"
>
>
> Why? A computer that can access another computer does not need
> any marketing!
>
> Allchin said: ``It's a very, very feature-rich product.''
>
> hell, of course it is!! it allows one computer to access another! what
> more do people want?
>
> Will linux be able to challenge XP? will Linux be able allow an
> authorized user to access a computer over the internet?
>
> I can't wait for windows XP to come out to find out how they did this
> (I hope they did not cheat and used "telnet").
Yes this is a major leap forward in network computing. Of course
Microsoft have always been the leader in allowing unauthorised
remote access to their system by just about any computer on the
Internet. :-)
--
Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
looking any better.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: LOMAC shocks Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 14:52:21 GMT
Microsoft officials are shocked that Linux has beaten them to the
.net market by releasing LOMAC first!
250,000 GPL developers working under Linux beat 37,500 total employee's
at Microsoft!
This is why Linux is kicking Microsoft's ass.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
