Linux-Advocacy Digest #626, Volume #34 Sat, 19 May 01 17:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Win 9x is horrid (Roy Culley)
Re: Win 9x is horrid (Roy Culley)
Re: Win 9x is horrid (Roy Culley)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Donn Miller)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Les Mikesell")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Les Mikesell")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Donn Miller)
Re: Advice needed. (Martigan)
Re: Dell Meets Estimates ("Jon Johansan")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Dave Martel)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Karel Jansens)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jon Johansan")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jon Johansan")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 20:44:23 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <AOWM6.1267$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Again, MS could send 1 byte of data extra in a TCP header every time you
> connect to microsoft.com and do the same thing. They do *NOT* need to do it
> through activation. It simply makes no sense whey they would choose this
> method, and not some other less visible method, *IF* they were going to do
> this. Merely using their software is enough.
I cannot believe how naive you are. You think they can just add a byte in
a tcp header and no one will notice? Some of us do run IDS's which look
for unusual things like this. Just exactly where in the tcp header are
they going to put this byte? A recent example that our IDS found was
smtp data packets with the tcp options bit set. This goes against the
RFC and I contacted the postmaster about it. He wouldn't accept there
was something wrong until I sent him examples of the offending packets
and quoted the relevant paragraph from the RFC. There is no need for me
to say what MTA this server used (other than it wasn't a Unix system)
but it demonstrates that some of us do detect irregularities in IP.TCP,
UDP headers.
>> And you can be certain that the telephone system will be via a premium
>> number at $$$s/minute, on the specious grounds that operators have to be
>> paid for, but in reality to encourage users to register via the Internet
> so
>> the spyware can report back.
>
> No, just like the Office activation, which is already in place, it's a toll
> free number.
>
>> The simple answer is to refuse to use XP.
>
> Why is that the simple answer? If MS wanted to collect information, they
> could build a way into the next security patch for Windows 2000 or ME or 98
> or whatever. The point is that if you are paranoid enough not to use WinXP
> because you think MS is spying on you, you should be paranoid to not even
> use their OS in the first place.
No they can't because it will be noticed. You can't fool all the
people all the time. Why else are they using encryption in XP? If, as
you have said, they are using an MD5 type hash to identify your system
then that should be enough. By using registered user name, address,
timezone, etc I'm sure no two PC's would create the same hash. Therefore
no need for encryption. I must therefore conclude that they are sending
other data that they don't want you to know about. Think how valuable it
would be to have all your web surfing details, mailing lists subscribed
to, newsgroups you post to, etc.
You just can't trust them. Even if Microsoft weren't up to no good
their pathetic security record is just as big a risk.
It astounds me that Microsoft servers are in a majority for secure
Internet servers. With the record IIS has it doesn't matter if they
use 128 bit encryption with certification. How many of these servers
keep your credit card details on the same server? Just use one of
the many known security bugs in IIS to get all that info from a server
that doesn't have the latest patches because the administrator os
overwhelmed trying to keep all his servers up to date with the
latest security fixes. Over 2 a week last!
So as the guy said, the simple answer is to 'refuse to use XP' and
IIS if you want to have a secure system.
--
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: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 20:48:00 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 18 May 2001 00:08:52 GMT, Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> It's much easier for Microsoft to spy on their users via data
>>>> transmitted in encrypted form over the Internet . Most users will be
>>>> blissfully unaware
>>>> even if 40-50k, perhaps even 100k of data - a full inventory of their
>>>> hard disks, for example - were to be sent to Microsoft.
>>>
>>> Again, MS could send 1 byte of data extra in a TCP header every time
>>> you connect to microsoft.com and do the same thing. They do *NOT*
>>> need to do it through activation. It simply makes no sense whey they
>>> would choose this method, and not some other less visible method, *IF*
>>> they were going to do this. Merely using their software is enough.
>>
>>You don't _need_ to connect to *.microsoft.com or whatever host they
>>could use to collect data (you might even not be on a network at all),
>>but you _have to_ get an activation code.
>>
>>If I had to do some (illegal) datacollection I would probably do it
>>during activation.
>
> I think the goal here is not data collection, but the ability to tie a
> real identity to your machine.
Exactly. So why the need to encrypt it. If they use a one way hash such
as MD5 then there is no reason. The only conclusion you can come to is
that Microsoft are, or will, have their SW send other data that you
wouldn't want to be sent. You just can't trust them as a company and
with their appalling security record you can't trust their SW either.
--
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: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 20:57:51 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> That's a pretty good reason to avoid XP like the plague. Unfortunately, in
> a few years time 90% of consumer machines will be running XP, there being
> no other choice within the Microsoft world, and your digital identity will
> be as clear as DNA.
>
> Another motive is to stop piracy, so I'm told. Of course, within days of
> the launch of XP, cracked copies, or corporate copies that don't require
> authentication, will appear, if they're not already available. This gives
> the lie to the anti-piracy motive, and reinforces my opinion that Microsoft
> are looking for complete control over the desktop, a continuing monthly
> subscription based revenue stream, and control over your data (remember the
> fiasco recently over data sent via Passport servers, I reckon the mask
> slipped for a moment).
XP is a desparate attempt by Microsoft to continue their desktop monopoly.
The failure of W2K and ME to meet their expectations have caused this.
I think companies and consumers have had enough. This is most apparent
in the business area. W2K adoption has been poor to say the least. Companies
aren't willing to continually fork out money for new versions of Microsoft
SW. Maybe SP6a made NT just too good (ie doesn't crash as often) that
there is no need to upgrade.
--
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: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:56:23 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3afc9c38$0$41613$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 10 May 2001 19:46:10
> > >"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>
> > >> Jan Johanson wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Is there really any doubt that W2K rox the house?
> > >>
> > >> Yes, because unix systems stay up longer. Remember the "awesome"
MTTF
> > >> that Windows 2000 exhibits? LOL.
> > >
> > >Yes, I do. And W2K stays up every bit as long as unix systems.I know
you
> > >won't admit it or can't imagine it but that's your problem not ours.
> >
> > Evidence?
>
> Sure - the thousands of W2K boxes doing it as we speak. The dozens of such
> servers I work around daily. The almost 100 of them in the colocation
center
> we use that haven't been touched in... who knows how long...
>
> <snip denial>
There is that MS commercial on TV about servers that haven't been
touched in 'days' as though that should be a surprisingly long time.
Real OS's run for years without any attention. And they don't
pop up dialog boxes and stop and wait like IIS 5.0 does when
an error occurs.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 15:57:01 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Superior networking? Ah yes, that makes sense. Linux can't handle two
> network cards and DHCP on my machine.
I'd be very surprised if Linux can't handle more than one network card.
I mean, people use 2 NICs on Linux all the time to connect an extra
machine to their private LAN.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 16:00:45 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> So, how come the world's biggest supercomputer (bar one) consists of
> primary Windows desktops?
SETI runs on unix boxes as well. Of course, Windows is more popular, so
naturally the majority of them are going to be Windows boxes. This has
nothing to do with technical merit.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 16:02:06 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> You didn't read what that was all about, now did you? I fixed the problem
> by changing a setting in The Gimp. My whole point througout that thread was
> I that I shouldn't need to.
I've got other things to do other than listen to you bitch and whine
about a free operating system.
====== 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: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 20:18:09 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:1bHL6.59830$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > > Can't you read. Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW in 2000. A
RECORD.
> >
> > And I would bet that Linux had just as many, if not more. It's just
that
> > they aren't as well publicized or as heavily hit. For instance, Red Hat
7.1
> > has had six security advisories in just the last month alone.
> >
> > Red Hat 7.0 has had 45 security advisories in the last 6 months.
> >
> > That's not counting the security patches which didn't make "advisory"
> > status, such as the stealth security updates in the kernel patches.
>
> And that's just there little niche software. Imagine if they sold the
> number and volume of products that Microsoft does. The number would
> be more like 450 rather than 45.
>
RedHat's distributions include thousands of additional packages
beyond the base OS and their security advisories cover everything
so they are already comparable in number of products. I don't see
how volume has any relationship to bugs other than putting more
people in danger.
How many security patches were there just between sp1 and sp2 for
win2k? Someone here went through them a few weeks ago and
installed over 20, with each forcing a reboot. I don't know if that
was all or just to fix the worst problems.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 20:20:54 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3afdda58$0$82830$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > There is a guarantee by IBM of 35 years of no hardware failures on their
> > mainframe line.
>
> I'd like to see this - show me the guarantee.
>
> Then show me the complete MORON that would run the same computer hardware
> without a single second of upgrade downtime for 35 years...
Real machines don't need downtime for upgrades. Unfortunately not many
people can afford them.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 16:27:31 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > There is a guarantee by IBM of 35 years of no hardware failures on their
> > mainframe line.
>
> I'd like to see this - show me the guarantee.
>
> Then show me the complete MORON that would run the same computer hardware
> without a single second of upgrade downtime for 35 years...
If you don't need an upgrade, then why upgrade at all?
====== 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: Martigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advice needed.
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 20:42:34 GMT
David Kistner wrote:
> I need advise.
>
> I am using Microsoft Frontpage 2000, Access 2000 and Visual Basic 6 to
> manage databases and develop/manage multiple database driven websites.
> I'm locked into the Microsoft world at work, but want to escape Microsoft
> for
> the sites I manage on my own from home. These sites are for non-profit
> groups and frankly I can't afford to keep up with Microsoft's prices for
> the web dev products.
>
> 1. I want to try Linux but am bewildered by the different Linux
> offerings. What Linux O.S. should I try?
Linux is an OS. If you really have no clue D/L or get Mandrake 8.0 and
install it on your Win partition first, get a book, and start delving in
until you can get your own TRUE Linux partition.
>
> 2. What web tool could replace my Frontpage, or is there anything like
> this?
Plenty to choose from.
> 3. What database could replace my Microsoft Access 2000?
Plenty of Databases out there great with SQL
>
> 4. What programming language would you recommend to replace Visual Basic?
What do you want? I do C++ but I know there are plenty others, like
SQL, Python, C/C++, JAVA...
>
> Any additional advice would be greatly appreciated. I'm very very
> disillusioned with Microsoft and would like to escape to a better world -
> I' m hoping it's Linux.
Before you make the jump PLEASE read up on Linux at WWW.linux.com
WWW.linux.org, and WWW.linux-mag.com. I would rather you do research on
it to be sure it's the route you want to go before you lose any data or get
to frustrated. Get a book called Running Linux by O'Reilly. It's a bit
dated 1999 but the fundamentals are the same and the book goes into basic
usage of CLI commands, basic installation knowledge to administration;
This book is to get you started up and running good but not a GURU book.
I research Linux for about a six months before taking the plunge, it was
rough at first but now it's smooth sailing (we'll my version of smooth.)
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Dell Meets Estimates
Date: 19 May 2001 15:56:07 -0500
"Shun Yan Cheung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e4ulh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9e4lh4$ccu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2 + 2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >That's just a Sun press release.
>
> At least it has benchmark numbers for TPC-H....
> TPC-C is too simplistic and has been considered to
> be outdated, SAP is a better measure. Go to
>
SAP is excellent:
a..
1.. In SAP Sales & Distribution and Retail Benchmark performance tests:
2.. A 32-way Unisys ES7000 running the SAP Sales and Distribution
benchmark achieved 18,500 SD users. This compares to the best Sun result of
23,000 SD users on a 64-way E10000. The Sun E10000 is at the end of its
product life, while Unisys expects to further enhance the ES7000 with 900
MHz processors in the very near future.
a.. In the SAP Retail Benchmark, the best Windows 2000 and SQL Server
solution scored 3,165,000 transactions per hour while the best Sun solution
scored only 2,412,000 transactions per hour.
b.. Over half of new SAP sales are on Windows-based systems. Over
one-third of existing SAP sites run on Windows platforms. SAP has over
10,000 customers running on Windows platforms. (Source: SAP)
Of course, W2K owns SAP too...
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 19 May 2001 16:04:04 -0500
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:HvzN6.929$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "JS PL" <the_win98box_in_the_corner> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > > Nice teleology; MS forces people to pay for the same crap all over
again
> > > over and over (well, admittedly, it isn't quite the same, which of
> > > course is half the reason for the complaints) and this is "in order
for
> > > it to improve"?
> > >
> > > Linux improves for free. Guffaw.
> >
> > If your time is worth nothing...tee hee...
>
> I don't think you would talk about time if you installed all those MS
> Win2k security patches one by one that force you to reboot after each
> one installs. One guy here did that with at least 21 of them. Another
> one didn't, and had a web server broken into (apparently like most of
> the rest of the world a few weeks ago...) and had to reinstall everything.
> Is that your idea of saving time?
Hmm... lesse, new server yesterday... installed from a W2K SP2 slipstreamed
CD I just burned. After it was done applied one (1) patch and rebooted once.
I'm not totally current... doesn't seem to bad...
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 14:53:43 -0600
On Sat, 19 May 2001 16:02:06 -0400, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>> You didn't read what that was all about, now did you? I fixed the problem
>> by changing a setting in The Gimp. My whole point througout that thread was
>> I that I shouldn't need to.
>
>I've got other things to do other than listen to you bitch and whine
>about a free operating system.
Sounds to me like Pete went down a list of linux flaws and decided to
suffer every last one of them himself just so he'd have an excuse to
bitch about linux.
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 19 May 2001 16:06:08 -0500
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:HdAN6.935$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3afc9c38$0$41613$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 10 May 2001 19:46:10
> > > >"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >>
> > > >> Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Is there really any doubt that W2K rox the house?
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes, because unix systems stay up longer. Remember the "awesome"
> MTTF
> > > >> that Windows 2000 exhibits? LOL.
> > > >
> > > >Yes, I do. And W2K stays up every bit as long as unix systems.I know
> you
> > > >won't admit it or can't imagine it but that's your problem not ours.
> > >
> > > Evidence?
> >
> > Sure - the thousands of W2K boxes doing it as we speak. The dozens of
such
> > servers I work around daily. The almost 100 of them in the colocation
> center
> > we use that haven't been touched in... who knows how long...
> >
> > <snip denial>
>
> There is that MS commercial on TV about servers that haven't been
> touched in 'days' as though that should be a surprisingly long time.
> Real OS's run for years without any attention. And they don't
> pop up dialog boxes and stop and wait like IIS 5.0 does when
> an error occurs.
>
Amazing that I've never ever seen an IIS box do that, 4 or 5 - and yet you
seem to make it sound like they all do... agenda ??
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 18:26:46 +0000
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> I think the SETI program is a farce! No offense to you, but I often
> wonder what good does it do them? Radio waves travel a little slower
> than the speed of light. And if the radio waves are coming from many
> million light years away I'd say it was very old news we would be
> receiving. But I doubt they will get anything from it as they advertise
> they are looking for. All I know is that the end user gets a block of
> data to crunch... do we really know what this data is? Could it be
> entirely something else?
>
>
All electromagnetic waves travel at the same speed, which is the speed of
light in a given medium. Radio waves are electromagnetic waves end will
therefore never be slower than light.
That aside, the goal of SETI is not to get the latest news from Alpha
Centauri B/3, but to get proof that intelligent life developed on another
planet.
I don't know the details of the SETI project, but I assume they are looking
for patterns in radio waves that would indicate that those emissions have
an artificial rather than a natural source. Since we obviously receive
quite a lot of radio transmissions from interstellar space (just about
_anything_ that is warmer than 0K emits electromagnetic waves), that would
be where the SETI@home crowd comes in.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
===============================================================
Has anybody ever wondered why Microsoft launched Windows 95
with a song that contains the line: "You make a grown man cry"?
Oh, wait...
===============================================================
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 19 May 2001 16:07:07 -0500
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > There is a guarantee by IBM of 35 years of no hardware failures on
their
> > > mainframe line.
> >
> > I'd like to see this - show me the guarantee.
> >
> > Then show me the complete MORON that would run the same computer
hardware
> > without a single second of upgrade downtime for 35 years...
>
> If you don't need an upgrade, then why upgrade at all?
Tell me what you know in computers that is 35 years old that doesn't need an
upgrade?
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 19 May 2001 16:08:07 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9duli0$rlp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Linux improves for free. Guffaw.
> >> >
> >> > If your time is worth nothing...tee hee...
> >>
> >> If your time is worth nothing, install Linux.
> >>
> >> If both your time and money are worth nothing, then install Microsoft.
> >
> > I am convinced there is almost no way you attend oxford - unless your
> > parents paid off admissions...
>
> Hahahaha! LOL!
>
> You checked the root of my email address then!
why - just read the organization line... yawn...
>
> Well, I've got news for you buddy, my parents didn't pay off admissions
> (that kind of stuff doesn't happen any more) and besides if they did, I
> would have failed my first exams with flying colours and have been kicked
> out. Oh, BTW I passed, so I'm good enough to stay here.
oh boy - you're a paper computer "expert" - yhipee
>
> If you still don't believe me, go to the following URL:
>
> http://users.ox.ac.uk
>
> And look under my name under private pages. If you're lazy, here's a
> short cut:
>
> http://users.ox.ac.uk/~scat1148/
>
wow - impressive - NOT
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
