Linux-Advocacy Digest #278, Volume #26 Wed, 26 Apr 00 23:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: IBM DUMPS REDHAT!!! WhY diD it TaKE them SO lung? (John Travis)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (petilon)
Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel (Larry Ozarow)
Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel (Achim Nolcken Lohse)
Oh please (Chris Aakre)
Re: Linux RUINED my PC LINUX SUCKS!!!!!!! (Streamer)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Terry
Porter)
Re: Microsoft tries to scam its Insurance Company (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...) (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 01:46:28 GMT
The code and has been examined by MANY people. Even I have looked and
modified some of it. I am FAR MORE comfortable that there are no
backdoors in my Linux code that I would be if I got my OS that NOBODY
outside the company has access to AND is known to have had back doors
deliberately placed in it. Never mind that you have to PAY for the
backdoor you get from MS. Good deal your getting there otto! REAL SMART!
<SNICKER>
In article <o3LN4.69091$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8e5ocv$ppl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ah, isn't the world of Linux wonderful?? I don't use Redhat so this
is
> > not an issue for me! This app is not a core Linux app and is only
> > distributed by Redhat. If Redhat continues to ship insecure
software,
> > people will start using the more secure distributions. No
retraining, no
> > redesign, some time switching distributions but that's nothing
compared
> > to what it would take to break MS habit! I LOVE CHOICE! Were will MS
> > users go if MS continues to insert back doors into it's product???
> >
>
> Except that you forgot to mention that the distro you are using might
have a
> backdoor. Undiscovered at the moment,true, but might be known by
hackers.
> Security companies tend to do testing on the well known platform and
not on
> the flavor of the week.
> Did anyone tested Webmin, similar to LVS from Red Hat, from Caldera?
>
> Otto
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat
Date: 27 Apr 2000 02:05:50 GMT
In article <8e6u1m$qe1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8e6r7g$lqd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> In article <ISBN4.438$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/newsbursts/0,7407,2487559,00.html
>
>> >"IBM Corp. (NYSE: IBM), the No. 1 computer maker in the world, filed with
>> >regulators to sell about $14.37 million worth of shares in Red Hat Inc.
>> >...
>>
>> So, this means that IBM exerts less (or no) control
>> over Red Hat. Why is that a bad thing? Other investors
>
>It's not a bad thing at all. All it means is that we'll
>finally be spared from the evangelical rantings of people
>such as yourself very soon now.
So, are you and CHUD claiming that because IBM sold some Red
Hat stock, this means everyone is going to lose interest in
Linux and stop using it?
You two ought to get a better grade of Microsoft propaganda;
the stuff you're using is pretty pathetic.
>> bought that stock; Red Hat still has its capital.
>>
>> The local Costco has as big a display of Red Hat boxes
>> as it does of Microsoft Windows.
>
>Costco does not have the corporate prescence of IBM, nor
>do they have the high-quality hardware to offer that IBM
>does. All they have are generic prefabbed PCs, which are
>generally of a lesser quality.
Actually, by "boxes" I meant boxed sets of software. You
know, $35 for Red Hat Linux 6.2, containing an extremely
stable, multi-user, cross-vendor compatible OS, plus many
development systems and thousands of applications, or $200
for Microsoft Windows 2000, containing a less stable,
single-user, non-compatible OS, and nothing else.
Costco also sells HP computers (with MS-Windows, which some
people find useful as a game platform).
>> >Well, it was fun while it lasted. The fad's over, time to pull out.
>> >
>> >-Chad
>>
>> Chad, we're really not interested in the excuses you make
>> to your wife in bed.
>
>I think Chad was referring to people like you, who need to
>pull their heads out of a certain oriface.
The use of Linux all over the world is steadily increasing,
with great success, while you and CHUD sit here and post
stupid and nasty lies about it, all of which get torn apart
instantly, making you look like total idiots. So who has
their head up their ass?
------------------------------
From: John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM DUMPS REDHAT!!! WhY diD it TaKE them SO lung?
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:38:48 -0500
Stop trolling you shit head. No one is going to be stupid enough to
avoid linux because of your bullshit. Are you trying to win a speed
trolling contest or something? You are doing it so fast now you can't
even spell anymore.
jt
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
From: petilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:08:32 -0700
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Office on Palm ? That'd be interesting....
Why not? If Office on PocketPC is a good idea then I don't see
why Office on PalmOS would be a bad idea. Besides, PalmOS is not
limited to hand-held devices. Palm has already announced plans
to make bigger internet-access devices based on PalmOS.
>
> Microsoft acquired their commanding position in productivity
> software by having the best software available.
Nonsense. Microsoft always had the weakest productivity
applications. But they defeated competitors by leveraging the
OS monopoly. When Microsoft released Windows 3.1, when they
released OLE 2.0, when they released Windows 95, Microsoft was
able to release new versions of Office that take advantage of
new OS features 6 months ahead of their competitors.
MS Office team got pre-release information much ahead of outside
competitors. Also, the Office team had tremendous sway over the
what features went in to the OS itself. They could get the OS
guys to put in the features they want, modify functionality etc.
Outside competitors never got this kind of power and control
over the OS. How can you expect outside developers to compete
and stay in business in this kind of environment where one of
the players have exclusive control over the playground?
I have been saying the above for a long time, but never had
conclusive proof. But now I do. Here:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000426/tc/microsoft_81.html
Excerpts:
``We wouldn't have Windows today if it hadn't been for the
Office group and the Windows group working together,'' Gates
said, speaking by telephone from a computer hardware
developers' conference in New Orleans. ``It was the thinking
that was done, being in one company, going after a new user
interface, taking a huge risk, that we were able to create
Windows.''
Read between the lines and you can see that Gates is admitting
the Office group had power and control over OS features that
outside Office competitors did not have.
Gates sounds pathetic when he says "we wouldn't have Windows
today..." All Gates has done is to clone features from competing
operating systems. I don't see how Gates comments make sense.
Apple, NeXT, IBM etc created better operating systems with no
help from an in-house Office development team.
More from Gates:
``We need to have our research people, our Office people, our
Windows people all in one group taking breathtaking risks on
this breakthrough user interface that is delivered in this
next phase of the Internet,'' Gates said.
First off, Gates' goal is to shift the Internet from open
standards to Microsoft proprietary ones. The Internet doesn't
need Gates, thank you very much. Secondly, it is interesting
to see Gates admit he can't compete unless his products are
able to leverage off each other in order to lock out
competitors.
--
Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
(posting from India)
* 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: Larry Ozarow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux.corel,alt.linux,alt.fan.linux,sbay.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,alt.os.linux.best
Subject: Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 02:30:49 GMT
Thomas Phipps wrote:
>
>
> actualy slackware had the option of being copied to floppy to install on
> cd-rom-less systems {and I have had to install this way}
> the base system took about 5 floopys and each "part" took from 3 - 12
> floppies each ... it took around 90-100 floppies for the full install
> and as of version 3.3 I think it still had that option ... I don't remeber
> but I don't want to go digging for my old slackware disks
>
> [snip]
>
>
Before the heavy gui-ization that was a consequence of Moore's law
the whole floppy based slack distribution was just under 30 floppies.
The first Linux I ever used was the old TAMU distribution which had
no separate install program at all, and no options. You just fed 20 some
floppies into your machine in sequence as it prompted you.
Larry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Achim Nolcken Lohse)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.corel,alt.linux,alt.fan.linux
Subject: Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 02:18:24 GMT
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 00:39:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher
Browne) wrote:
....
>That's not necessarily a big problem; it is quite likely that whatever
>flavor of Linux you might try to install would have greater success
>recognizing the CD-ROM drive than Windows had.
>
As a Linux newbie myself, I can't speak from experience with various
distributions, I've only tried installing Redhat 5.0, Redhat 5.2, and
Corel Linux 1.0. But on that basis, I have to question your judgment
on CD-ROM drive support.
Corel Linux was recommended to me as being the easiest to install and
configure, and so I shelled out five bucks for a CD copy. I even set
aside a whole hard drive for it, made the boot floppy, and forged
ahead. The floppy ran, the opening window appeared, the disk icon
spun, and then the system hung.
It appears Corel Linux can't find my vanilla IDE 6X Funai CD-ROM
player to install itself.
So far my experience is that you either have to be fairly
knowledgeable about computer hardware and software, and determined and
patient, or just plain lucky, to install and run a Linux system
satisfactorily. And then there are the security issues....
After following security issues in a couple of usenet for a month or
two, I myself don't feel competent to go online with my Redhat Linux
installation. I was hoping Corel Linux would be easier to secure, but
it looks like I'm not going to find out.
My suggestion to the original poster would be to stick with Windows
for a while longer,
>You see, the problem Windows is having is that it can't directly
>"talk" to the CD-ROM; it needs a bit of computer program called a
>"driver" to do so. If that bit gets lost, Windows does not know the
>CD-ROM is there anymore. Linux tends to keeps the drivers a bit
>closer to hand, and is rather less likely to "get lost" in this way.
>
Anyone needing this level of assistance, certainly can't be expected
to run Linux safely IMO.
Achim
------------------------------
From: Chris Aakre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Oh please
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:38:01 -0700
Ugh. Ignorance is so annoying. First of all, you can change your font
settings in netscape by clicking on Edit -> Properties, so actually
learn how to use the basic gui of a BROWSER before you post in a
newsgroup. I'm surprised you managed to post your message! Go and play
with your bloated, proprietary, hacked together OS and quit trolling.
Chris Aakre
Question Microsoft.
------------------------------
From: Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux RUINED my PC LINUX SUCKS!!!!!!!
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 21:40:29 -0500
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
<nothing at all>
Hi S,
Did you finally get back on the net after being terminated on your ISP?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 27 Apr 2000 10:38:57 +0800
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 08:04:56 GMT, s_Ea_DAag0n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 25 Apr 2000 15:34:14 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>
>Sure - I understand that you have given up because you are not technically
>competent enough to debate in this forum.
#Wintroll method number 3, personal sleights.
Your Questions have been answered here already, The Ghost in the Machine, went
to great detail, and Graig Kelley quoted Alan Cox.
On the other hand you have not replied to the first question asked by me,
you're still anonymous and still demonstrating a deficient understanding of
Linux.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 6 days 9 hours 35 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft tries to scam its Insurance Company
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 02:32:15 GMT
In article <8e5kro$8ie$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, The Cat
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Kind of like trying to sue the firemen for getting your rugs dirty
> > while they were trying to save your house from burning down.
> >
> > TheCat
> >
> > On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 15:24:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
> > wrote:
> >
> >> i had to laugh... now Microsoft is trying
> >> to claim insurance money for its
> >> legal costs in defending itself against
> >> civil claims for monopolistic
> >> actions...
Under normal circumstances, the insuance company would help
with the defense and would work toward a settlement. The
insuance company might have even been willing to cover certain
damages - in order to mitgate the damages.
Unfortunately, Microsoft didn't want to settle. It wanted to
continue with business as usual. It believes that it can win in
the Supreme Court. They cite the preceeding consent decree case
and assume that the court will treat this case the same way.
There is only one problem. This isn't the same case and the insuance
company know it. They tried to cut a deal and Microsoft rejected it.
Worse yet, they publicly stated that they were above the law, that
anything Juge Jackson says is irrelevant, and that they aren't going
to change anything until the Supreme Court rules.
What i critical here is that even if Judge Jackson's remedies are
thrown out, the scope of the evidence is MUCH broader in this case
than in the Consent decree case. Worse yet, Microsoft executives
themselves have provided the most damaging evidence. Essentailly
like the man chaoged with murder saying "yest I shot him 20 times,
then stabbed him 10 times, then poured acid down his still breathing
throat and watched as he screamed in pain - but he deserved it because
he insulted my mother". The defendent thiks that the judge will "let
him off" because of the justification. In this case, Microsoft
didn't deny the illegal actions, but tried to justify them.
Microsoft forgets that if the Supreme Court decides that Microsoft
use anticompetitve contracts to establish and protect a 98% market
share of the Intel PC desktop market, it won't matter whether
Microsoft claims that their justification was to benefit the consumer.
The Court will not only rule that Microsoft was a monopoly, but also
that it used illegal anticompetitve methods to establish and maintain
that monopoly. That's when Microsoft's REAL problems begin.
Not only will Microsoft have to worry about the 20 states, but there
will be 50 states fighting for a piece of the pie. Europe and Asia
will also want a slice. Because Microsoft refused to accept a
negotiated settlement, the Insurance company is "off the hook".
At most, they may have to pay the agreed amount to Microsoft, but
beyond that, the insurance company can cancel the whole policy
if they like. With the potental for $30 billion in directly stated
liability just due to Windows prices, and the potential for another
80 billion in damages due to bundling (the feds settled but the
states didn't), Microsoft won't be worth the commission to sell the
stock.
> >> and the insurance company won't pay! (Saying
> >> that Microsoft is responsible for any litigation
> >> costs as a result of its own actions, not inadvertant
> >>circumstances)
> >>
> >>hah! this just shows how corrupt those Softie weasels are!
> >>
> >>Microsoft deserves everything coming its way - in spades...
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...)
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 22:40:12 -0400
Full Name wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:57:20 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Actually I have to disgree, but not for the reasons you may want to
> >hear. Windows is unreliable. Avoiding Microsoft to avoid unreliable
> >software is a reasonable position.
> >
>
> We have approximately 50 NT Workstations running Office 97 on a
> variety of clone hardware. All these machines are left on permanently
> (for backup purposes) and the users do not in general re-boot. Many
> of these machines have lengthy uptimes.
>
> In the last 6 months I've observed a total of three "blue screens of
> death" across the 50 workstations. These were fixed by pressing the
> reset button.
It should be noted that this is a Microsoftism, pressing the reset
button does not fix anything. If you have a BSOD, it is because
something is wrong. Just pressing reset is something that Windows users
do.
>
> We also have one PDC and three BDC's. Of these machines the only one
> I know of that has experienced a failure of any kind was the BDC on my
> desk which I use as a workstation. It unexpectedly re-booted while
> downloading a runaway WWW page using Netscape. The machine is a P133
> with 32 MB ram and struggles to do many things.
REBOOTED?????
>
> We also have two Sun Ultra 10's, one Sparc 10 (all running Solaris
> 2.7), an Intel based Linux box and an old HP Unix box. After a recent
> power disruption all 50 NT systems (including the servers) came up
> without any problems. One of the Ultra 10's failed to restart and
> required a file system check. This resulted in down time of our WWW
> server facilities.
Yes, most UNIX file systems need to be shut down correctly. A Smart UPS
should be used. I would insist on the same thing for a SQL database
running on NT.
>
> The Sparc 10 was recently re-booted remotely using "sync;sync;reboot
> -l". It failed to start requiring a file system check. This resulted
> in a mad dash to work in the car and complaints from our users.
Not knowing the history of the machine, it could be anything.
>
> Our Linux box currently has Mandrake 7.x installed. It is only about
> a month old. In that time Linux has been installed four times. The
> first time it was installed with Red Hat 6.x. This was not considered
> secure enough and the switch was made to Mandrake. Unfortunately I
> selected high security and found it rather difficult to get the ftpd
> running. So Mandrake was reinstalled a second time with low security.
>
> Our Unix expert then took on the job of getting NFS running on the
> Linux box to allow backup. Unfortunately the Linux flavour of NFS
> refused to talk to our Solaris box with the tape drive. After almost
> two weeks of full time tinkering (and another install of Mandrake) we
> now have NFS mounts between Linux and Solaris 2.7.
So, what you are saying is that your "UNIX Expert" does not know various
UNIX systems, he/she only knows one implementation.
>
> At the end of last year we upgraded the Sparc 10 from Solaris 2.5 to
> 2.7. The three of us started at around 10 a.m. and finished most of
> the work by 7pm. This was mainly due to the repartitioning of the two
> hard disks and problems getting the system to boot from the correct
> device. The entire down time was two days. We run Oracle 7 on the
> system and have since discovered the orainst program core dumps if you
> try to run it on a Solaris 2.7 system (known bug). We hope we will
> never have to do a re-install of Oracle.
Oracle sucks, for sure. Any OS and/or application can have problems on
an upgrade. See what happens with MS SQL server during an upgrade of NT.
>
> I recently wiped NT 4.0 from our BDC and installed NT 4.0 Terminal
> Sever edition. The entire operation (including setting up shared
> printers and directories) took less than two hours. This was done
> solely by myself on a lazy Saturday afternoon. When the users
> returned on Monday no one noticed. The advantage over NT of being
> able to remotely manage our Unix boxes has vanished.
Terminal server is not a lightweight service. One should not think of it
as remote management package.
>
> We have had a shortage of disk space on one of our Ultra's and on our
> NT box. Purchasing a 28GB IDE HDD for a tad under $300 solved the
> disk space problems on the NT box. The price of a 9GB SCSI disk for
> the Ultra is around $1500. We would need a Sun technician to come out
> and install it. I slotted the IDE in myself. We cannot afford the
> Sun 9GB. We now dump tar files from our Unix boxes to our NT machines
> using Samba when we require temporary backup space.
>
Doesn't anyone there understand SCSI?
> We have a 70 GB tape drive for backup purposes on our NT box. This is
> used to backup our NT Workstations. We have experienced no problems
> with this tape drive.
OK, yes tape drives are not rocket science.
>
> Just before Easter we discovered our 24 GB Sun tape drive was filling
> with less than 12 GB transferred. A Sun technician came out and
> replaced the tape drive. Fortunately we have a (rather expensive)
> maintenance contract with Sun. We will test the replacement drive
> after Easter.
Hardware does break. That has nothing to do with operating systems.
>
> We don't see the need for a maintenance contract for our NT boxes as
> our staff has been pulling apart and assembling PC's for years.
> Replacement hardware is also very inexpensive and readily available.
>
One does not need a service contract for Sun machines either. Just
because you don't understand a Sun box as well as you understand the
P.C. does not mean it is not as good.
> I do more or less all of the maintenance of our NT Server. The only
> time I need touch the thing is when a new user arrives or we need some
> new shared resources.
Lucky you. In my experience, NT boxes usually need more attention.
>
> Our Unix boxes consume pretty much a full time person. A great deal
> of time is spent assisting users creating scripts and giving them
> access to installed software. Many of them simply refuse to learn any
> Unix and expect us to construct their scripts for them. We cringe
> when a user comes in and wants to start running an X application. We
> push users toward NT equivalents wherever possible. Our Unix users
> consume at least three times as much support time as our NT only
> users. The users themselves clearly prefer to use NT equivalent
> software whenever possible.
A properly setup UNIX environment can practically run itself.
>
> One thing I like comparing between our Unix boxes and NT is sharing a
> file system that is going to hold our Access databases that are used
> by many different people. Access creates a '.ldb' file that must be
> read/write by all users who simultaneously access the database.
A shared file database with record locking is not a very good example of
an application that is a good target for a heterogeneous network.
>
> From the NT point of view this takes about two minutes. The most time
> consuming aspect is ensuring all of the users are placed into the
> appropriate group using the user manager. The file system is then
> shared with change permision to the new group.
>
> From the Unix/Samba pointing of view you must concern yourself with
> the following:
>
> The group the users are in (edit /etc/group).
> The samba umask (smb.conf).
> The group ownership of the directory to be shared.
> The group s bit to be set on the shared directory.
> The user, group and other permission on the files themselves.
>
> All this is necessary to ensure the locking file is read/write to all
> users regardless of who opened the database first and actually owns
> the file locking file.
A shared file database is problematic on many levels. You are better off
using a client/server model. Postgres on Linux is pretty good, and there
are ODBC drivers for Windows clients.
>
> Once you have that all sorted out you will still find that the
> administrators (who have permission to change the forms, queries, etc
> as well as the data) will have to telnet to the Unix box and chown a
> file before they can copy over it. This is due to the actual owner of
> the file being the last administrator to change it. This is if course
> a non-issue with an NT server.
It is a not issue if the file parameters are setup correctly under UNIX.
>
> In the first four months after I started working I found on four
> mornings I was denied access to a Samba share I had access to the
> previous day. This was due to one of the administrators inadvertently
> changing one of the settings above. This happens quite often with
> Samba resulting in irate users. One must be continually aware of file
> ownership, group ownership, s bits and general file permission.
>
> We have not had a single problem with access to out NT shares
> involving established users.
Your whole message is screams that you may have setup UNIX, but have not
tried to learn UNIX. UNIX (Linux, Sun, etc.) are not Windows NT. Period.
This does not mean NT is better, it means that NT is different. UNIX is
very capable, more so than NT, at providing very stable services.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
