Linux-Advocacy Digest #456
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 18:13:04 EDT Contents: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac) Re: Linux has one chance left. (Pete Goodwin) Re: Linux has one chance left. (Pete Goodwin) Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft feature (Chronos Tachyon) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin) Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft (Erik Funkenbusch) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin) Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Gary Hallock) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin) Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin) Re: The Economist and Open-Source (Erik Funkenbusch) Re: The Economist and Open-Source (Erik Funkenbusch) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Erik Funkenbusch) From: T. Max Devlin [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! Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:11:10 GMT Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001 Or, more honestly, it's the best tool to build apps for that desktop, because it dominates (criminally) that desktop. Nobody ever accused you of being honest, though, eh, Daniel? :-* The amazing thing isn't really that you believe that. The amazing thing is that you can't wrap your brain around the notion of anyone disagreeing with you. What in the world gave you that impression? That would be: Nobody ever accused you of being honest You seem to think that I can't *really* believe what I say, so I must be lying. I suppose it might seem that way to you, sure. I don't mistake lack of lying for being honest, though. Whether you believe what you say is not a subject I'm willing to discuss as an entire category. I'm not planning on second-guessing you, but simply double-checking your statements indicates you are being dishonest, routinely. Perhaps it is meant to be light-hearted, but I've already pointed out that there's little humor in criminal activity, so your supposed merriment is obviously just trolling. Just because people disagreeing with me are often in error does not mean I have any trouble with the concept of their disagreement. Post to Usenet and believe no-one can disagree with me? The cognitive dissonance of the very idea makes my head hurt. Mine too. Hell, *I* disagree with me all the time! What's the problem? Really? I've never seen you do that. :/ I don't do it out loud, for god's sake. They'd have never let me out of the hospital if I still did that! :-D -- 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,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:11:11 GMT Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [...] I don't find any of these criteria particularly satisfying. Welcome to the fascinating world of abstraction. Ever read Plato, Daniel? That's what you're trying, known as the Socratic or Platonic method; through this means it is possible to prove that nothing exists. Ever heard the term post-modern bullshit? That's what you've got there. No, it isn't. Saying T Max Devlin is wrong, again isn't the same as saying Everyone is wrong, nothing is true. What does an induction assumption mixed with a category error have to do with the empirically proven uselessness of the platonic method for defining abstractions? Words don't meet criteria, they have meaning, or they do not. The term API does not have sufficient meaning when applied to what is more properly referred to as a routine. You say this but you give me no reason to believe it. I'm asking you to tell me how int 21h is *different
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 16:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows Stability ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Re: Will politics kill the case or will justice prevail? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard
))
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: Windows 2000 (Shane Phelps)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: The real truth about NT
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
From: "Joseph T. Adams" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: 14 Jan 2001 20:12:15 GMT
In comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Nik Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Perhaps it would be worth reflecting on the fact that many of the stability
: problems for NT and LINUX as seen by advocates on both side of the issue are
: the result of inexperience with the OS they despise most!
There is some truth to this, but it's just a little more complex.
First, Linux itself (the kernel) doesn't have stability problems, but
Linux distributions often do, because they often ship with buggy apps
and/or security settings that simply aren't appropriate for machines
that aren't behind a firewall. These problems will bite newbies more
than advanced users, but they are problems in the apps and/or
configuration, not in Linux itself.
As for NT, it tends to be relatively stable out of the box, and then
become less so over time, as DLL Hell and bitrot slowly and
insidiously take over. Both of these are preventable, but only
through very competent systems administration, which is difficult to
find in the NT world, since competent sysadmins can earn much more for
doing much less stressful work in a Linux or UNIX environment.
For the record, I have *far* more experience using and developing for
NT than for Linux, but still far prefer the latter.
Joe
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:15:25 -
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:18:21 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"mlw" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Here is a question for all us Linux people.
If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
consider it?
The problem is that X is so entrenched in Linux that it would be damn near
The bulk of what constitues Apple NeXTstep is already
running on top of X courtesy of GNU and has been for
awhile now.
[deletia]
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
--
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Will politics kill the case or will justice prevail?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:06:06 GMT
In article a3o66.161894$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Register: MS anti-trust appeal looms
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/15891.html
This case appears to just run and run.
Why is it taking so long for the US Courts
to come to any conclusion in
this case?
The American court system was designed from a very interesting point of view.
Because of the travisty of justice that happened during the Salem Witch
trials, the American court system was designed to protect defendents from
"Witch Hunt" style persecution. The defendent is presumed innocent until
convicted. They have a right to legal council, they have a right to privacy
and search and seizures require judicial review. Even the best judges and
prosecutors make mistakes, or can be politically or economically motivated to
engange in unjust prosecution. For this reason, we have an appeal process
that can often take years to complete.
Keep in mind that it was under the administration of George Bush senior that
Microsoft was first investigated and prosecuted. The federal trade
commission investigated Microsoft, identified a number of illegal actions,
and after negotiating a conduct agreement with Microsoft opted NOT to have
the Department of Justice prosecute Microsoft). It was only when Microsoft
violated the original Bush agreement that the DOJ reluctantly took the case,
and settled it out of court under the Clinton administration.
Keep in mind that it was under the Clinton administration t
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 23:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: C++ -- Our Industry... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("PLZI")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: C++ -- Our Industry... (kiwiunixman)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. (spicerun)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: C++ -- Our Industry...
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:16:42 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
mlw wrote:
Charlie Ebert wrote:
Windows has made it's fair share of EXPERTS in the fields
of wasting money and pissing people off.
Anybody who spends time developing applications for VB
is an idiot. Hell! The whole crappy Microsoft shitbag
will be gone! Vanished in just 5 years!
It won't be gone in 5 years, but the issue is longevity. VB stuff
written now, will not function in 5 years. It will require a rewrite.
C/C++ code written today may need to be recompiled, but C/C++ are
standards.
We are in a disposable economy. Years of people's lives wasted on silly
things is OK if you can make a profit.
They had NO DESIGN! When asked how did you develop
this crap for the last 3 years the answer was
we assigned everybody a loose idea of the project
in peices and had them spend 1.5 years writing it,
then they FITTED the peices together for the other
1.5 years.
But there are a TON of NITWITS out there my friend
who will spend millions proving they are assholes.
I have yet to see a real product made with VB. I have seem lots of
prototypes that have wow-ed management, to just fall flat when a
productization push was made.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
Management could not accept the notion of delaying
the project for another year so all these peices
could be fitted together properly and tested.
We found this all out when the last VB crudster
resigned 2 weeks ago. They all left in the
span of 3 months.
And this final paragraph is ironic as hell!
wow-ed by prototypes then fell flat on their faces
when management forced shipment.
This is EXACTLY what happened.
And customer confidence in the product went to
ZERO! And the product was shut completely off.
A dismal and expensive failure as management felt
they KNEW BETTER than the more experienced software
developers. They felt the certifications were the
real key, the aspect they had 6 months to 2 years
experience with VB was the real key!
The REAL KEY was you have to have experience with
developing projects from the ground up. It has
nothing to do with instrumentalities. It's the
experience in designing a project then bring it
forth from the ground up as a team.
They weren't even a team. VB people don't work
that way. Their most serious projects always
seem to revolve around some limited web site.
Even more shocking! The team they hired managed
to spend almost twice the money during a 3 year
time period as the in-house mainframe department
did with all their purchases and needs.
I disagree with you about 5 years. Microsoft
will be gone in 5 years because of cost.
That and subscription based crap will turn
customer incentive away from Microsoft and
toward Linux.
And I'm certain of this.
Charlie
--
From: "PLZI" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:28:24 GMT
"Les Mikesell" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:DseU5.25033$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
"PLZI" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:9G8U5.91$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
I am NOT saying that MS is Doing the Right Thing when not giving the
intricasies of these services - but I fully understand why they do not
give
them. I can come up with tens of examples, where the protocol is open,
but
the service which uses the protocol is prorietary.
Then why do they keep up the deceptive pretense that they use
standard protocols and can interoperate correctly with anything else?
They don't and can't as long as they use proprietary protocols and
should be forced to say that in their advertising and literature.
Now, what did you misunderstand from the above? The protocol is open. Take a
rudimentary example, say TCP/IP. Now if I implement a service, which talks
with this open standard protocol, but does things which are proprietary, does
this make the TCP/IP sudde
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #28 Thu, 17 Aug 00 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: It's official, Microsoft® porting applications to Linux ("Rich C")
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates) ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux ("Rich C")
Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's (Brian Langenberger)
Re: It's official, Microsoft® porting applications to Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Karel Jansens)
Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Josiah Fizer)
Re: Decent Linux CDR software wanted. (Tim Kelley)
Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you! (Tim Kelley)
From: "Rich C" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's official, Microsoft® porting applications to Linux
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 14:15:50 -0400
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Milton wrote:
In a desperate attempt, to regain some legitimacy in the high-tech
software arena, Microsoft® is letting a an experienced 3rd party,
Mainsoft, port it's applications to the state of the art operating
system, Linux.
The results, so far, have been disappointing.
Brought to you by Windows 2000 Magazine
http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2874
:)
This sounds more like MS trying to find ways to make sure all of its
current security problems can be ported to Linux. Or a way of trying to
make Linux look bad in other ways. I just don't think MS is capable of
doing this in an attempt to look technically efficient. It is more than
likely to make Linux crash and burn. Or, as the article itself says, to
use poor and 'behind the times' apps on Linux to try and convince people
to move 'to Windows'. Of course, this is a little silly since a lot of
us moved FROM Windows to Linux.
Of course, I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time either.
I think it's more of an attempt to carry forward MS's bloated, proprietary
document formats to other operating systems, to hold those users hostage as
well.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
--
From: "Christopher Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 04:25:58 +1000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:8nh80n$q6c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Christopher Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:8ng5vn$6ft$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:8ng5jh$uv4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Christopher Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:8ne7hg$bk2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Sheesh. First you use TWM, and now mc running in an *xterm* ?
No, I never said I was using TWM.
My bad, it was fvwm, was it not ?
And you wonder why people accuse you of "cheating" ?
If the finctionality is equivalent, where is the cheating?
Because the functionality *isn't* the same - that's the point.
Explorer can and has done that since IE4.
Again, talking about the Windows Explorer (explorer.exe) NOT Internet
Explorer.
It is normal explorer, using the IE component from within it.
Or would you prefer good ol' wheel-reinventing and have FTP implemented
in
explorer *and* internet explorer ?
What version of Windows Explorer are you considering?
IIRC, you can do this once you've installed IE4 (and its "shell
integration") on whatever version of Windows you are running.
--
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 13:12:56 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathaniel Jay Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
One thing I am glad, they never got as bad as Voyager. Voyager should
be
subtitled "one series too many".
Voyager was good if you didn't think of it as a Star Trek spin-off.
For me it lost a lot of its credibility in the first season. In the first
episode it is stated
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #27Tue, 4 Jul 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Which Linux should I try? ("Joe Kiser")
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux code going down hill (Aaron Kulkis)
[OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm
ready! I'm not ready.)) (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm (Aaron
Kulkis)
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. (Aaron Kulkis)
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 19:10:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Codifex Maximus) wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
While I haven't been to alt.os.linux.mandrake, I'm sure there is an army
of people there helping that army of people who need help.
At the moment there's confusion as many people say "it works for me" and
just as many say "not for me".
Pete
--
From: "Joe Kiser" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Which Linux should I try?
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 15:15:16 -0400
"Charlie Ebert" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
You can try them all. It's cheap.
For the price you'd pay for ONE copy of Windows 2000, you can have a copy
of all those mentioned PLUS debian.
I paid three dollars.
--
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 19:17:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in 8js6lj$lv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No, he is NOT! Linux is an OS kernel and KDE is a Unix desktop Developed
by DIFFERENT people, though cooperating they are INDEPENDENT of each
other. The Linux (being a KERNEL) servers an different function than KDE
the desktop. Linux CAN and does run WITHOUT KDE and KDE can and DOES run
without Linux. They are independent of each other! I would submit a
Linux bug to the Linux development team and a KDE to the KDE
development team!
Avtually I was referring to calling it a lie, not KDE bug = Linux bug.
Using your logic, any application that RUNS on Windows that has a bug
means that Windows has that bug! after all, KDE is only an APPLICATION
that runs on Linux!
See above.
Did you check the logs You claim an absolute! that means that there
can be NO error recorded ANY where! Or were you just being unclear
again??? Being so unclear that I could say "if there was no error, how
did the application crash?"
Yep, checked the logs. No error reported. No indication that kfm crashed.
What's that got to do with the computer that meets *MY* needs??? windows
lags FAR, FAR behind in the FLEXIBILITY that I need! You claimed an
absolute again when you claimed that Linux is lagging behind Windows.
(what windows? 3.1??? you're unclear again) You must now prove that
Linux lags behind EVERY VERSION of windows in EVERY situation. Not
flashing an error message if trivial compared to what it takes to run on
- Alpha's, 390's, macs, Intel, SGI. Windows (ALL VERSIONS) lags behind
here! Super computers??? Going to Linux or Unix windows (all versions)
lag behinde here!!! So your statement that "Linux is lagging behind
windows" is FALSE and MISLEADING!
Blimey, if you carry on like that, you'll burst a blood vessel. Calm down.
Would it help if I qualified my statement? As in:
"The Linux desktop lags behind Windows"
Is that better?
wow how nice of you!
Yes aren't I just.
Pete, Are you going for the troll of the year award???
Are you going for the insult of the year award? Stop calling me troll and
maybe I'll stop using "Linux" so casually.
Pete
--
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 19:18:51 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hear! Hear!
Pete
--
From: Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 15:22:42 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
Quoting abraxas from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 2 Jul 2000 13:22:47 GMT
[...]
Solaris is an exceedingly specialized UNIX, linux is not UNIX at
all. Linux is 'gnu-nux'.
Obviously a matter of perspective as well as opinion. I think AIX might
count as a "specialized Unix", but I think you'd have to go to terminal
AIX is a BSD-derived product that was written "to the letter" of
POSIX compliance,
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #26 Thu, 11 May 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Which distribution (abraxas)
M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware! (billy ball)
Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security. (John Culleton)
Re: Which Flavour Is Best? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Which distribution ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Not so fast... (Matthias Warkus)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Which distribution (Yns)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Linux Setup (John Culleton)
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Dorai Sitaram)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (John Hasler)
Re: Here is the solution (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
Re: Need to make UNIX autoresponder (Craig Kelley)
Challenged Todd Returns (Was: Here is the solution ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Which distribution
Date: 11 May 2000 15:00:09 GMT
John Culleton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find Slackware easy and the most generic distro. We should
perhaps tell new users that Linux is for fiddlers. It does not
just install itself and run without some decision making on the
user's part.
I think that perhaps the best distrib for the newbie is Mandrake; but
it is ABSOLUTELY nessesary to read the fucking manual before you get
started with this distrib; otherwise you stand a very good chance of
installing something WIDE open.
We should answer all questions courteously. There are no stupid
questions.
This is one of the Big Lies. There are of course stupid questions.
This is one of the Ethically Sound Big Lies, since it is usually used
on children who are still developing a skin thick enough to withstand
The World (TM).
There are sometimes stupid and/or arrogant answers.
Damn skippy. Stupid questions, stupid answers, etc. The trick is to
make sure that you're stuck before you ask. Effort is what draws
respect.
=yttrx
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
Subject: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:03:26 GMT
fyi:
once again, M$ sticks its foot in its mouth... here's an interesting letter
from a M$ bottom-feeder asking ./ to censor postings:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/11/0153247mode=nocomment
--
Subject: Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security.
From: John Culleton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 08:06:21 -0700
Design is the important thing. A secure design is less vulnerable
than a less secure design. The tradeoffs are features and
convenience vs. security. If you design the overall system to
allow emails that sing and dance then you make the system
vulnerable to emails that rewrite the boot sector. One can create
a closed proprietary system theat is very secure. Microsoft
didn't bother to do that but they were pursuing other goals, like
marketablity, glitz, ease of use etc.
Unix/Linux has fairly simplistic protections, like passwords and
root/only privileges etc. but they do work most of the time. The
openness of open systems in theory renders them more vulnerable
to attack by crackers (after all, they have the source code!) In
fact since the days of the infamous Internet Worm there haven't
been many attacks on Unix and its lookalikes (including Linux.)
To be candid there aren't enough of us to attract attention.
Sendmail has had and may still have security holes which is a
good argument for using another mail client instead.
JOhn Culleton
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
From: Roberto Alsina [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Which Flavour Is Best?
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:04:33 GMT
In article yJ8S4.966$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
"none2" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Rolfe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree! I just installed Mandrake 7.0 and it is really very good.
The
only thing I would fault them with is the install docs are a tad
confusing and self contradictory. I found that ignoring the "warning
mandrake is prolly the worse distro i've seen, its basically a copy of
Redhat, btw dont give me that "optimised for pentiums shit" most of
RH's
stuff is already -O2 optimised, and the kernel is the only thing that
needs to be optimised, like that 3dnow optimised shit.
Before you start badmouthing the work of others, you should get
informed.
a) -O2 has nothing to do with "optimizing for a pentium". That's -m586
and such.
b) All code you run, runs faster if you optimize it. That's the point
of optimizing, after all. So it's not "just the kernel&q
