Linux-Advocacy Digest #3, Volume #35 Wed, 6 Jun 01 05:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!! (Philip V Neves)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Philip V Neves)
Re: Windows advocate of the year. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (Donn Miller)
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: XP - what's for me? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: SourceForge hacked! (.)
Re: UI Importance (GreyCloud)
Re: Best Distribution? (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. - Security issues.- competition - (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Philip V Neves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 07:53:13 GMT
Fred K Ollinger wrote:
> Stuart Fox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : "kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:9fbnku$42j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : > Philip Neves wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : > Try this
> : > http://www.linuxprinting.org/show_printer.cgi?recnum=464242
> : >
> : > In general if you have prnting problems go to linuxprinting.org
> : >
> : > That printer is listed as working perfectly so just follow the
> : instructions
> : > on that page.
>
> : Come on now, the printing system is so broken it requires it's own web
> : site? You're joking right?
>
> : I don't see a www.windowsprinting.org, or a www.macintoshprinting.org.
>
> : And they say Linux is ready for home desktop use?
>
> Where did you get driver for your printer? Maybe it came on a cd which
> came
> with the printer. Did you get linux driver on cd? If not then call the
> company and ask for one. Does MS write all printer drivers? If not then
> don't ask Linus to do this.
>
> fred
>
I figured it out. I posted the message to lash out a bit. I was getting a
little frustrated. My printer works now. I just doesn't print in High
resolution 1440x720.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 02:56:40 -0500
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fkigs$jig$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Okay, this makes much more sense now.
> Win32 is depended on the GDI, and if the GDI crash, Win32 will crash too.
> This obviously render the system unworkable.
>
> Can the system *restart* Win32 & GDI?
> Or would too much data would be lost to make it a workable solution?
Well, if Win32 dies, then any application running that makes calls to Win32
will die with a fault as well. Basically you could restart Win32, but you'd
need to dump all Win32 processes first, and it's doubtful whether that would
be beneficial for the effort.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 02:59:12 -0500
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fkigd$jig$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9fkd06$1eeg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The distinction is that the GUI & GDI are separate. If the GUI crashes,
> > fine, just respawn explorer. If the GDI crashes, well WinNT needs that
to
> > function correctly so it throws an exception (Blue screen)
>
> Okay, but why does it need the GDI to function correctly?
> What is the *point* in making the OS depended on the GDI?
Many subsystems in Win32 use COM, and COM uses window messages to
synchronize what used to be called Apartment Threaded COM objects (now
called Single Threaded Apartments or STA's). This allowed COM objects that
were written without reentrancy in mind to function correctly in the 32 bit
model without having to rewrite them.
Sadly, STA's are still all too common, and parts of the OS still use STA's
in their own COM activities.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 03:00:36 -0500
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fkigl$jig$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:NLgT6.8365$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9fji5f$hb1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:My9T6.8045$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:9fi8iq$md7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay, why I don't like this?
> > > > > Why would the kernel BSOD just because the GUI crash? It should
> > restart
> > > > it,
> > > > > not stop.
> > > >
> > > > Why should it restart it? If the GUI crashes, that means something
is
> > > > seriously wrong, and will likely just crash again.
> > >
> > > Why should the GUI crashing cause a full system halt?
> > > NT is aimed at servers, not just desktops. This just doesn't makes
> sense.
> > > Other platforms don't crash if there is a crash in the GUI (well, not
> > > always.)
> >
> > What you fail to realize is that the GUI subsystem ran in the same
> subsystem
> > as other critical services as well. If that subsystem crashes, then you
> > lose a lot more than just the GUI.
>
> Yes, at the moment it run in kernel space, but would it cause such trouble
> if it would run on user space?
It used to run in user space, however, this caused too much latency. This
is the prime reason that X "feels" slower than Windows apps, and something
MS, nor Windows users want to give up.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 03:01:49 -0500
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fkigp$jig$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:30:13 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Why should it restart it? If the GUI crashes, that means something is
> > > seriously wrong, and will likely just crash again.
> >
> > Why? There are many things that can cause a crash, and some of them can
> > be transient. Like a bug in the GUI that makes it crash when a user app
> > gives it a bad parameter. Restarting the GUI will solve the problem
> > until the user does the same sequence of actions again.
>
> There is a confustion here.
> In Windows, there is the GUI, which is handled by Explorer, and there is
the
> GDI, which does the screen drawing.
> You can kill the GUI & restart it, but the GDI is the one that the system
is
> depended on.
No, the GUI is not Explorer. Explorer is simply a file manager. The GUI is
in USER, which manages windows and various other high level objects (menus,
widgets, etc..) while GDI is only graphics primitives (Display contects,
regions, lines, etc..)
------------------------------
From: Philip V Neves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 08:01:43 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > And proprietary software is just one of them. X, Apache, BSD, and other
>> > software are all projects that you close your software from if you use
> the
>> > GPL.
>>
>> Huh? WTF are you talking about?
>
> X, Apache, and BSD are incompatible licenses with the GPL. If you include
> GPL'd code in an X server which has X licensed code, then you are
> violating
> the GPL and are not allowed to use it. If you include GPL'd code in the
> FreeBSD kernel, then again, you are violating the GPL and are not allowed
> to use it.
>
>> > And those are only the high propile projects.
>>
>> Again, what is keeping you from writing proprietary software for Linux?
>> What is keeping you from writing GPLed software for Windows?
>
> This has nothing to do with Windows, but with other Free software projects
> that are completely incompatible with the GPL, and are not allowed to use
> GPL'd code.
>
>
>
>
>
what are YOU talking about X is so compatible with GPL. Xwindows is
completely free. You can embed X into anything you want so even if GPL is
incompatible X isn't.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows advocate of the year.
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 03:04:53 -0500
"Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ray Chason"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > My nomination for Winvocate in a Tux is Ebert. Sometimes I wonder if
> > that man is sane.
>
> Oh shit, Charlie is one of my heroes. Nobody ever wonders what side of
> the fence he's on; he calls a spade a spade. And sometimes a diamond or a
> club or a heart gets called a spade too. Charlie cuts a wide swath.
Sometimes? hahah. Everything is a spade to charlie, even the jokers and
the dealer.
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: 6 Jun 2001 03:00:46 -0500
drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>daniel wrote:
>>Typical M$ users don't want to access ext2 partitions on their local HD.
>>Those that do know free utilities like Explore2fs.
> I'm glad that it can't access ext2 partitions. I wouldn't be able to
> trust with my precious linux partitions. I bet if they did support
> ext2, they're probably have some "feature" that formats them to FAT32
> or something.
That's true. However, that's why you'd want read-only support of other
filesystems. For example, I sometimes reboot into Windows, but mostly I use
FreeBSD now. I try to copy the files I am likely to need over to my Windows
FAT32 partition. Sometimes I leave FreeBSD, reboot into Windows, and then
suddenly realize that I've forgotten to copy something. So, in this case, if
I had R-O access to my ufs partition, I could copy it over. But in no way,
shape, or form do I want to be able to write to my ufs partition. There's a
big potential for screwing something up. But, if the mount_msdos code (or
mtools) manages to f--- something up on my FAT32 filesystem, well, that's no
big deal, because it's only my Windoze partition.
I think that the best idea is to burn a copy of your home directory onto a
CD-RW, and use your CDROM to access those files.
====== 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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 03:17:14 -0500
"Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <KihT6.8375$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > Huh? Once it's in the public domain, it's always in the public
> >> > domain.
> >>
> >> Ohmygawd. This is so wrong I don't really know quite where to begin.
> >
> > Perhaps with a valid argument.
>
> You are completely wrong, monumentally misinformed, and do not have the
> slightest clue what you are talking about. Valid enough now?
No.
> > This has nothing to do with published code.
>
> Off topic. Re-read my original post; I discussed publicly funded
> research, not published code. You are replying to me, not me to you. If
> you want to set the topic, then post first.
I was replying to this comment from you in which you reply to Mike (quoted
as well):
> > So, the question is, why shouldn't government funded software
> > development be public domain?
>
> How would you propose that it be kept in the public domain without some
> form of restrictive licensing?
Clearly you are replying to his statement, which is only about government
funded software, not research.
You asked "How would you propose that it be kept in the public domain..."?
My point is that once it's in the public domain, it's *ALWAYS* in the public
domain. Any copyright or patent is not valid because you can prove prior
art or originality.
> >> Intellectual property does not enter into the public domain simply
> >> because it was publicly funded. That is a myth and a misconception,
> >> and I stand by my original statement.
> >
> > I didn't say otherwise. I simply said that once it is in the public
> > domain, it can't be re-copyrighted (after a copyright expires, for
> > instance) or copyrighted. The Public Domain work is still public
> > domain.
>
> Off topic. I said pubicly funded research is *not* in the public domain.
> Yet you persist in attempting to shift the topic to public domain issues.
You were replying to a comment about Software, not research.
> >> "Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v. 1.0 for Microsoft
> >> Windows 2000 Operating Systems, April, 2000; Copyright 2000 Microsoft
> >> Corporation. All rights reserved. "
> >>
> >> Do you see any attributions there? I don't.
> >
> > Why? It's the specification of the authorization data, not the kerberos
> > protocol. The authorization data is what goes in the extension field of
> > the kerberos ticket.
>
> What does that have to do with copyright attributions? I don't give a
> shit about the mechanics of the protocol for the purpose of this
> discussion, only the copyright issues. Get back on topic.
The copyright is on the specification of a user-defined extension field of
the Kerberos protocol which MS (the user) defined and copyrighted. They did
not copyright the Kerberos protocol like you claimed, only the specification
of the extension field which they authored in its entirety.
> > Then they have the right to copyright the implementation, not the
> > specification, unless they make significant changes to it.
>
> That's almost what I said, but again you're not quite right. A few more
> waffling topic-shifting posts and you should have it.
I'm not the one changing the topic. The topic was about government produced
*SOFTWARE*. Produced by government employees for use in government
programs, not by third party contractors.
> >> > It would help if you didn't distort the facts.
> >>
> >> It would help if you had some facts.
> >
> > It would help if you used the right argument.
>
> It would help if you stayed on topic.
You're the one that started bitching about research. I never mentioned
research.
> As a friend, take my advice, and bail out of this gracefully. I've got
> more IP than you've got pubic hairs. If you persist, I will bury you.
You mean as a moron.
Admit that you're wrong. You went of on a tangent without even realizing
it.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XP - what's for me?
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 03:22:18 -0500
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The largest thing inside MS's XP is it's software
> piracy prevention, detection and reporting features.
As per charlies typical tricks, he doesn't clarify what he means by "XP".
Is it Windows XP? Office XP?
> Your paying $300 + dollars for an upgrade so that
> MS can spy on you. Sell your name on a list of
> software pirates to be prosecuted by attorneys.
> Interfere in your everyday privacy.
He says this without even understanding that XP's activation doesn't require
a name to be used at all.
> That is what 30% of XP is.
A random figure pulled out of thin air.
> Questions!
Is that a sentance?
> Should it be legal for MS to force all users
> of Windows to submit to inhouse spying even
> if it is in their EULA and they agreed?
Nobody is spied upon. The question is irrelevant because it's not true.
> Do you believe MS should have the license
> to essentially take over the internet
> with .NET and replace the current world
> powers who are regulating it's functionality?
Do you see MS owning domain name registrars? Do you see them owning
internet backbones like Sprint or Worldcom or AT&T? Do you see them owning
ICANN or NSI? Do you see any way for them to usurp this power without
owning all such bodies? I certainly don't.
> Do you believe foreign powers such as China
> will eventually outlaw all Mircrosoft
> products from their country to prevent
> the US and Microsoft from dominating
> the internet and making the world
> an American's only club?
It wouldn't be much of an internet if each country cuts themselves off from
the rest of the world, now would it?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: SourceForge hacked!
Date: 6 Jun 2001 08:32:45 GMT
drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05 Jun 2001 22:15:00 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen)) wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edward Rosten) wrote on 03.06.01 in <9fbobk$d7d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>> >>> >>What's a dalsehood?
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >typo(-d +f), presumably.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> How can you do that? They're on opposite sides of the keyboard.
>>> >>
>>> >>d & f ? They are right next to each other in QWERTY keyboard.
>>> >
>>> > Who said I had a qwerty keyboard?
>>>
>>> No one. They said that dalsehood was typed by someone with a querty
>>> keyboard (fairly likely).
>>
>>What do you have against qwertz keyboards? And I suspect (but dont know)
>>that azerty keyboards are also similar.
> qwertz keyboards are crap, that's what I have against them.
Aw sweetheart, are you one of those people who believes the urban legends
about "dvorak"?
Do prominently display your absolute ignorance some more.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 01:35:22 -0700
Woofbert wrote:
>
> In article <9fkdei$1ep0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stuart Fox"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 20:44:43 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > >
> > > >Proof: Windows can run GUI as well as CLI, and both have facilities
> > > >that
> > > >allow you to thoroughly hose your filesystem.
> > >
> > > Yes, but Windows' CLI is a piece of crippled shite.
> >
> > Which you haven't qualified with examples yet. Windows GUI is as
> > good or as bad as the tools you run in it. Bash is almost completely
> > useless without all the little tools and utils that you need to run
> > it, same applies to cmd.exe
> >
> > Give me an example of how it's crippled?
>
> * DEC CLIs parse parameters for you; DOS makes the CLI program parse
> them by itself. Thus DEC CLIs establish a standard way to specify
> filename parameters and options; in DOS there was no such standard.
>
> * DEC CLIs have the command history turned on by default. DOS makes you
> run a special program to make that work.
>
> * DEC's command language (DCL) naturally created a scripting language
> for Cl programs; DOS made you jump through some strange hoops now and
> then to make things work right.
>
> The various UNIX shells (which seem to me to have been inspired by DCL)
> are even better than DCL.
>
> --
> Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
> email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
> web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
Yes, and might I add that the DCL had a direct interface to all the
system service calls which DOS doesn't even do. DCL even allowed one to
change the names of commands and to order the commands to gain better
access speeds to those commands one uses the most. Example: show users
can be set to sh*ow u*sers so that the user can just type in sh u to get
the same effect. I liked DCL because I could give printers names inside
the system wide login DCL file and change their properties for custom
jobs and its all in one central file. The list can go on. :-)
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Date: 06 Jun 2001 08:33:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Best Distribution?
>When will people realise that spam does not work?
The problem is that it's essentially free, so if even one person in a million
responds, they've done well.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 03:43:53 -0500
"Philip V Neves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:HrlT6.6692$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > And proprietary software is just one of them. X, Apache, BSD, and
other
> >> > software are all projects that you close your software from if you
use
> > the
> >> > GPL.
> >>
> >> Huh? WTF are you talking about?
> >
> > X, Apache, and BSD are incompatible licenses with the GPL. If you
include
> > GPL'd code in an X server which has X licensed code, then you are
> > violating
> > the GPL and are not allowed to use it. If you include GPL'd code in the
> > FreeBSD kernel, then again, you are violating the GPL and are not
allowed
> > to use it.
> >
> >> > And those are only the high propile projects.
> >>
> >> Again, what is keeping you from writing proprietary software for Linux?
> >> What is keeping you from writing GPLed software for Windows?
> >
> > This has nothing to do with Windows, but with other Free software
projects
> > that are completely incompatible with the GPL, and are not allowed to
use
> > GPL'd code.
> >
> what are YOU talking about X is so compatible with GPL. Xwindows is
> completely free. You can embed X into anything you want so even if GPL is
> incompatible X isn't.
You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. I didn't say include X
code in GPL'd code, but rather GPL'd code in X code. Since X code doesn't
use the GPL, and all X code is published under the X license, that would
require relicensing the GPL'd code under the X license in order to
distribute it.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop. - Security issues.- competition -
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:06:27 -0700
Philip V Neves wrote:
>
> Andre G- wrote:
>
> > Please be rational:
> > rumors or assertions like MACOS is better or worse do not help anyone.
> > Be as specific as possible, every one win.
> > Clean facts ==> better competition.
> >
> > As far as I am concerned, the only desktop OS manual that I have ever read
> > explaining security issues an holes, and also how to test it is SUSE
> > Linux.
> >
> > For Linux / Unix there is also security test suite (called Satan) than you
> > can use for free. Could you make a specific comparison with other OS'es?
> >
> > Even if you do not appreciate Linux, and do not use use it, you benefit
> > largely from the Linux dynamic.
> >
> > Microsoft has to enhance its Windfows OS'es to be able to compete: Windows
> > users get a better product... and so forth.
> >
> > BTW: Apple used a free OS kernel (MACH) for the base of theur new finally
> > multitasking OS.
> > AG-
> >
> > Philip Neves wrote:
> >
> >> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >>
> >>> Chad Myers wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>>> Chad Myers wrote:
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Don't forget security, of which the MacOS has none.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> This must be the reason why there are thousands upon thousands
> >>>>> of virii for the Mac.
> >>>>
> >>>> There probably aren't thousands of active ones, but the Mac
> >>>> has virii.
> >>>>
> >>>> The reason it doesn't have as many is because it's a niche OS
> >>>> and virus programmers go for the largest potential user base
> >>>> for maximum effect. This is pretty elementary, perhaps you
> >>>> should pay attention more.
> >>>>
> >>> Sure, there are Mac-virii.
> >>> I should guess about 1 per 1000 win-virii.
> >>> As there are about 1 per 10000 win-virii on the linux-side.
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, you shouldn´t forget security. One of MS´s biggest plus, I guesss.
> >>> No one managed more. More virii, more trojan horses, more buffer
> >>> overflows. MS for sure knows how to do security.
> >>>
> >>> Peter
> >>
> >> The MacOS has the best security in the world. A group tested it in
> >> England. If the person who posted that that OS has no security then he
> >> doesn't know much about the MacOS. I'd put the MacOS's security up
> >> against Linux any day of the week. It will even stand up to Free BSD's
> >> securty. As for windows on the otherhand, well that company never has
> >> concerned itself with something so small as security.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> If you don't believe me that the Mac OS is the most secure operating system
> then take it from these guys.
>
> http://www.13idol.com/mac/macfacts.html
>
> The specific quote that I'm talking about is as follows:
>
> "After a well-publicized hack into their website, The U.S. Army abandoned
> NT servers in favor of the Mac OS. The Army's web site administrator
> stated, "It is more secure than its counterparts." "
Ah, I knew the Army wasn't stupid. :-)
--
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
******************************
