Linux-Advocacy Digest #291, Volume #26 Fri, 28 Apr 00 08:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
(s_Ea_DAag0n)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites (Sean LeBlanc)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (jbarntt)
Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat ("Rob Hughes")
Kernel Version Question ("Pig")
Re: i cant blieve you people!! (Full Name)
Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel (Full Name)
Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability ("Otto")
Re: Government to break up Microsoft ("Otto")
Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.) (Stuart Krivis)
Re: uptime -> /dev/null (Stuart Krivis)
Re: The truth is often painful... (Stuart Krivis)
Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat (Truckasaurus)
Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat (Truckasaurus)
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? ("Joseph T. Adams")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (s_Ea_DAag0n)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 05:17:58 GMT
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 16:28:22 GMT, Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Er, no. The quote said that asynch i/o was implemented in user space
>using threads and that an in-kernel implementation would not perform any
>better. That's quite different, as it is saying that Linux _does_ have
>asynch i/o, but it is not implemented the way you think it should be.
Not at all. Glibc has the _API_ for asynchronous I/O - but it is not
actually asychronous I/O. It, at best, is an approximation - calling
it asynchronous I/O would be akin to calling cooperative multitasking
"multitasking". It's better to have the API than nothing at all, since
you can port it to another system and get the functionality.
>The Alan Cox quote basically disagrees with your contention that asynch
>i/o needs to be in the kernel. Perhaps you have some analysis that would
>prove it one way or the other?
I don't have a formal analysis, but it seems intuitively obvious to
me that simply registering a few events and handlers in the kernel
to call when the event happens is quite a bit more lean than setting up
several entire threads (with their own task struct, and stack, and ...) and
throwing a bunch of them in the heap to compete with the other processes
on the system.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
From: Sean LeBlanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 05:26:34 GMT
Couldn't agree more. NT 4.0 workstation is a desktop (or tower :) )
OS by most people's definition. I've been using NT workstation
at jobs I've had since 1995. I've been using it at home since
1996. It has never (under ordinary circumstances)
taken me five minutes to boot or shutdown,
and I have 3 SCSI components in my system. Got news for you:
a similarly loaded setup of RedHat 6.1 and NT 4.0 workstation
take roughly the same time to load; I've timed them some time
ago just out of curiousity...both under a minute, including
time from power on to a logon screen.
To be fair, yes, RedHat has many more services out of the
box than NT has, and I was running the "graphical boot" in
RedHat.
I'd time it again to get exact seconds, but my current install
would be unfair - Linux is on IDE right now, and WinNT resides
on SCSI.
I'm not sure why the original claim was even made, it makes
no sense to me.
I've seen NT have problems with weird states and getting
it to shutdown gracefully may be impossible (yesterday I
saw it "lose" connection to domain, apparently, and not
allow login, even though I know domain admin password,
and it supposedly caches that data - odd; had to hard
re-boot, ie, reset button) or lengthy, but
under normal conditions, both the workstation and server
of NT 4.0 start up and shut down WAY under 5 minutes.
M$ products clearly have issues, and I'm not contesting
that, but let's get serious: NT 4.0 is a desktop OS, and
there is no doubt about that. Now, if someone were to say
NT 4.0 server is not a server OS, that might be debatable.
Can't speak for Win2K, haven't seen it used extensively.
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Rasputin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Scott Zielinski wrote:
> > > > If its a "NT replacement" is not on the desktop. In the real world,
> NT is
> > > > not a desktop OS.
> > > That's absolutly, completely, untrue. Ever hear of "NT Workstation?" If
> > > that isn't a desktop OS....
> >
> > A 'desktop OS' boots in less than 5 minutes. A 'desktop OS' takes less
> > than 5 minutes to shut down. Nuff said.
>
> Thus easily allowing NT to be a "desktop OS".
>
> If you've got an NT *Workstation* install that's taking that long to boot
> and shut down, you have serious problems.
------------------------------
From: jbarntt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 05:44:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> bytes256 wrote:
> >
> > Am I the only one here who thinks that X Windows is crap?
> > X Windows is extremely archaic, ridiculously bloated,
> > way too slow, and extremely hard to install.
> >
> > Let's get rid of it completely.
>
> What are you talking about?
>
> I laugh at Windows NT terminal server. It is a bloated attempt at
doing
> what the X Window system has done all along.
You laughed, I cried. I had to setup an NT 4.0 TSE server for some
remote clients. Totally ridiculous pain in the *ss. Oh well, guess we
we should have spent the big bucks and got Citrix Metaframe -
unfortunately, we couldn't afford to spend the $ that was needed to get
the functionality that should have been part of TSE.
>
> What is archaic about it?
>
> What is bloated with it, when compared to NT or Win2k?
>
> What is slow about it when compared to NT or Win2K?
>
> As for "hard to install" yes, the XFree86 X servers are hard to
install,
> but lets face it, they run on WAY more hardware than NT ever will. The
> "install" or setup issue is a one time deal with a system, and if this
> were "factory installed" no one would complain about it. It is
certainly
> a lot easier to install XFree86 on a linux system, than it is Windows
or
> NT on systems like Cyrix MediaGX.
>
> --
> 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"
>
--
jbarntt
<Chocolate Watchband>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 01:19:54 -0500
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8e8gr4$696$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8e879u$786$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > 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?
>
> Despite everything you just ranted, you do.
woah... nice come back....
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
>
>
====== 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: "Pig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Kernel Version Question
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 15:00:55 +0800
Hi all:
I get a question about the kernel version no.
I found that the version no is gradually increase from Beta version 2.3.01
to 2.3.5x.
Thus, I think the no. will increase gradually from 2.3.5x to 2.3.99.
However, it grows suddenly from 2.3.5x to 2.3.99.
Q1.
Why it does not grow gradually?
The version no. is now 2.3.99-pre6 (pre-release 6).
Q2.
Is it mean that once the bugs are fixed the stable version 2.4.0 will be
released?
Pls. reply me to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: i cant blieve you people!!
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 09:46:13 GMT
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 04:59:37 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>You mean... what if Word Perfect was let back into the market place?
>
>The mere mention of such an idea makes for nightmares in Redmond...
>
>
The DOS version of WP was quite a good package. The Windows version
was the worst mass produced software package I've ever seen.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.corel,alt.linux,alt.fan.linux
Subject: Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 10:30:50 GMT
I have to concur with Achim's comments.
All of the guys I work with are Linux advocates (with a definite
hatred of MS).
One of them recently purchased a Dell Inspiron 7500 notebook and
promptly installed Madrake 7.x. He spent a fortnight trying to get
the PCMCIA network card running. I was rather amused to see him
camped in the communications cupboard with his notebook directly
connected to the switch in an effort to get the network running.
He finally gave up on the card and installed one he new would work
with Linux.
We purchased a second identical notebook (except for having a Linux
compatible PCMCIA network card). It dual boots Win98 and Linux.
Getting the Win98 networking took less than 15 minutes.
I installed Mandrake 7.x but could not get the network to function. I
handed the notebook to another Linux advocate who informed me that I'd
installed Mandrake incorrectly and would re-install and have the thing
networked in an hour. This was just before lunch.
The owner of the notebook (who had already waited a week for the Linux
install) took the notebook home for the weekend without Linux being
networked.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:54:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Achim Nolcken
Lohse) wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 23:22:51 -0500, John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>> Someone should have steered you elsewhere. Corel seems to have some
>>hardware support problems (check their newsgroups). I don't understand
>>what you mean about the security issues. You think windows is more
>>secure than linux?
>
>I think she may mean from external attack while on-line. Certainly
>that's my feeling. Judging by posts in comp.security.firewalls
>there's no equivalent of Zonealarm in the Linux environment. To
>achieve the same sort of security with Linux on-line requires far more
>work and more knowledge than I've been able to scrape together in five
>months of trying to learn Linux.
>
>>You need to do some more reading. Any security
>>issues with linux are addressed quickly (unlike some other OS's). You
>>(and no one else) have no earthly idea what the code looks like for
>>windows so how would you assume it is secure. Ask any cracker which is
>>easier to do, a windows box or a linux box.
>
>Well, I understand there is a Linux kit that lets you completely take
>control of the machine of an unwary Linux surfer and conceal the fact
>from him. I've never heard of anything similar in Windows.
>
>>I am not trying to start an
>>OS war but don't troll a disabled lady with uninformed crap. She was
>>asking about linux distros and support, not for someone to tell her she
>>can't figure it out. And just for reference you don't have to be a
>>computert expert to set up a linux box (ever tried Mandrake 7?). I am
>>very new to computers and it isn't that hard (it is just different 8^)
>
>You seem to confuse dumb luck with skill. An acquaintance of mine with
>years of programming practice just tried to install Mandrake on his
>system and finally gave up on it.
>
>It took me many hours of work to get RedHat going on my system, and it
>still doesn't work well enough for me to do anything useful with it.
>Corel Linux wouldn't even install. The reference books available by
>and large stink. Your only hope is to get advice on-line or from a
>friend if you run into a problem, and that's pretty iffy.
>
>I've been to Corel's site, and seen at least a half dozen messages
>reporting the exact same problem I had, another half dozen here. So
>where's the fix? Nobody even knows what the problem is.
>
>I'm not saying that the advantages of Linux you cite aren't valid.
>That's why I tried, and continue to try to find a way to use it. But
>its not user-friendly, and especially not to computer novices. I'm no
>computer novice myself, but with one experimental keystroke, while
>trying to figure out how to mount my Bernoulli removables under Red
>Hat, I managed to completely wipe out 150MB of data. The reason this
>happened is not because I'm an idiot, but because none of the dozen
>fat Linux reference books I consulted had a single entry about
>accessing removable SCSI drives.
>
>Achim
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 10:37:21 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8e865g$ft8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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>
>
The code hasn't been examined by as many people as you seem to suggest. Yes,
the availability is there to do so. There's no argument on that. However,
most of the people are just using Linux and wouldn't even know how to look
at the code. Then there are people who do know how to, but that's as far as
they get. The next group of people can do minor changes and so on. Not many
have the knowledge required to check the code for security flaws.
More and more security companies starting to look at different versions of
Linux, that's the good news. The bad news is that more and more security
flaws they find. The following site lists vulnerabilities for SuSE, FreeBSD,
etc...
http://www.securityfocus.com/
As for paying for the software... That's a choice what I made, based upon my
needs. I rather use my computer, than keep looking at the code. Or find work
around unsupported hardware, use "vi" for that matter, etc....
Otto
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 11:14:32 GMT
"Mike Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I don't think they were necessarily "at fault" for the lack of options
when it
> comes to pricing. The market is such that people really only saw two
choices: A
> PC or a Mac. A PC has historically only been available with one company's
OS
> installed: MS.
>
> The fact that MS used bully tactics to make sure OEMs only sold windows so
that
> it was either all you could get, or what you had to pay for then also pay
for
> the OS you really wanted is clearly "their fault," but we are seeing a
change in
> this due to Linux pre-installs today. Though that percentage is very
small.
We could run in circles discussing this issue. MS was able to use those
tactics because everybody wanted to sell their products, under a favorable
term, which means incresed profit for the OEMs. They were/are competing with
each other and did things on the voluntary basis. OEMs are as much at fault
in this as Microsoft. Even now some of the OEMs would not sell you a PC with
OS other than Windows. Some of them started to sell Linux pre-installed and
then there are Linux companies where you can't get a Windows PC.
>
> DR-DOS was a product that, at the time, was technically better, and it was
> priced about the same IIRC. However MS kept any OEMs from selling it, and
even
> had that inital code in win3.? that would make it complain/not run under
DR-DOS
> (which they had to change). That's definately "their fault."
That was only in Beta code and was disabled in the released version. Don't
you think that MS had right to do so? Why should they tested Win3.x unders
DR-DOS?
>
> OS/2 was partially their fault, but also a good chunk of blame rests on
IBM's
> shoulders for their crappy marketing.
Yet most of the people blame MS and not IBM.
>
> > leader. Marketing has a lot do with it also, but just because one
company
> > can market and the other can't it shouldn't be viewed as unfair
advantage.
>
> Marketing has a shitload to do with it. I can't believe how many people
I've
> talked to that claim things about windows (or any other massively marketed
> thing) that they can't back up with any facts. I can usually shoot a lot
of
> what they claim down, and it's clear what they know is only what they've
read in
> MS brochures and stuff. Also, MS has virtually Billions it can dump into
> marketing if it wants, which _does_ give it quite an advantage... but it
won't
> replace quality and service forever.
My point was that being able to market doesn't necessarily makes the company
in question a bad company. There's a lot what goes into a product's succes
and marketing is an integrated part of the equtation. One could have the
greatest whatever, if people don't know about the product it isn't going
anywhere. Quality in itself is no guarantee for succes, especially when the
differences are marginal. People tend to respond favorably to advertisement,
especially when suits their needs. Being able to dump billions into
marketing does give Microsoft an advantage. That isn't much difference from
electing a president of the US, money rules there also. Is it right? No it's
not but nonetheless it's the fact of life.
Otto
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.)
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 06:15:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 18 Apr 2000 15:12:47 -0400, Andrew M. Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>limitations. For example, not too long ago I needed to do a
>search-and-replace in an XML file, using sed on Solaris. Some of the
>lines were really long, and it turns out Solaris 2.6's sed has a
>256-byte buffer somewhere. A line longer than 256 characters had a
>space inserted at the break point, which occasionally turned
><category> into <cate gory>, and broke the file.
>
>The fix was to install and use GNU sed, which worked correctly. Now,
>what does Solaris gain from having a buggy version of sed, and having
>to repair this bug themselves, when simply including GNU sed would
>solve the problem for them?
>
I'm sure that they, by now, know what these small utilities that they
include will do, and won't do. They can be reasonable sure that the bugs
have been worked out. They also probably have a reasonable number of people
around that are already familiar with the code and could fix things readily
if there is a problem.
Replacing their own programs with the GNU versions would mean a lot of
changes. And Sun would ask, "Why should we do this?" If people want GNU,
they can freely install GNU. If they don't need GNU, then they get Sun, and
Sun is a known quantity.
Then there's info vs. man... :-) Sun might also have to provide Answerbook
style documentation for any GNU software they include - Sun users might
expect this if they're used to it (I rarely use Answerbook).
--
Stuart Krivis
*** Remove "mongo" in headers for valid reply hostname
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: uptime -> /dev/null
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 20:36:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 05:59:04 GMT, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Donn Miller wrote:
>
>> Well, the problem is with incandescent light bulbs. By switching the
>> thing on and off a bunch of times, the tungsten filament warms and
>> cools, causing thermal stresses, which in turn shortens the life of
>> the filament. If you leave it on constantly, though, there is no
>> warming up and cooling down; it's just warm all the time.
>
>After reading the first few posts of this thread yesterday I got to thinking...
>this would make a great science project for a student. Get a bunch of identical
>lights with identical power sources (like a bunch of small lamps). Select a
Does this really apply to electronic equipment though? It is well known that
vacuum tube (thermionic valve to those in the UK) equipment is more
resistant to power glitches than transistor equipment. This would naturally
apply to ICs also. They're more delicate than a light bulb filament (or
heater filament in a tube.)
If you have 1 power "event" per day, and you leave your computer on 24 hours
a day, you have a 100% chance of getting hit by an "event." If you run your
computer 12 hours a day, you have a 50% chance of a hit.
A good UPS and power conditioner may take care of this, but it's still an
example of why you might not want to leave things on constantly.
People have been arguing about this for years with no answer in sight. :-)
--
Stuart Krivis
*** Remove "mongo" in headers for valid reply hostname
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: The truth is often painful...
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 07:15:09 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 05:52:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>If you were really in a business environment, you would know that the
>average user has a rough time finding their way home after eight hours
>at the office. Give them weekends off and they forget where they work.
>Change a menu item, and they blindly keep typing whatever it was they
>used to type that used to work until a cow-orker with a surviving brain
>cell sees that they need help. Swap out Microsoft for Linux, UNIX, or
>PACMAN, and your business user won't notice until you tell them. Then
>they'll complain about how wonderful the old system was even though they
>were never able to make it work. Put it back the way it was and they'll
>complain about the "new" system, even though its really the old system.
>
This is the typical elitist crap that I see far too often. "Users are
stupid." "Those lusers!"
You aren't God's gift to the world just because you have some knowledge of
computers. People are smart in different ways. Just because a businessperson
can't operate a computer well doesn't mean they are stupid.
--
Stuart Krivis
*** Remove "mongo" in headers for valid reply hostname
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 11:05:42 GMT
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.
> (Nasdaq: RHAT), a Linux software operating system distributor. IBM
filed on
> March 23 to sell 250,000 shares it acquired through a private
purchase from the
> company about 13 months ago, according to a filing with the
Securities and
> Exchange Commission made available on Wednesday. A spokesman for
Armonk,
> N.Y.-based IBM was not immediately available for comment. IBM sold
another
> 150,000 shares earlier this month worth an estimated $8.5 million,
the filing
> showed."
>
> Well, it was fun while it lasted. The fad's over, time to pull out.
Guess what Chad - They might sell for a bunch of reasons; last time I
checked, IBM wasn't an investment company.
Therefore, concluding that IBM sells because RedHat is a bad paper, is
just plain stupid.
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 11:19:53 GMT
In article <8e8gr4$696$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8e879u$786$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > 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?
>
> Despite everything you just ranted, you do.
Wow! He's got his head up your asses?!? Please post me a picture of that
one, will'ya!
Let me say it again:
Investment is not a core competence of IBM; they produce hardware and
software. Concluding that a non-investment company is selling shares
because they are bad papers is simply wishful thinking on your behalf.
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: 28 Apr 2000 11:44:45 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: When Windows 95 first came out, engineers put sniffers on the
: net to figure out why desktops were sending traffic between 1:00 A.M.
: and 4:00 A.M. local time. Furthermore, this traffic was going
: via UDP (thus bypassing firewalls).
Interestingly this is why I've banned all versions of Winblows from my
network. Prior to discovering NT's propensity to try to connect at
random times to nameless IP addresses in SE Asia, I had a lone NT box
behind a masquerading firewall. No more. It still exists in case I
have to open Office documents that SO or WP can't handle, but its only
connection to the rest of the network is via Sneakernet.
Microsoft is NOT entitled, legally, morally or otherwise, to know what
is on the contents of my hard drive.
: But Bill went on to elaborate. Furthermore, Microsoft has
: reserved the right to any information contained on a Windows
: enabled PC. On the flip side, Microsoft insists on nondisclosure
: agreements whenever it discovers a pirate.
: Microsoft has gained substantial equity interests in companies
: without giving anything of significant value (stock swaps, cash)
: using insider information that any broker would kill to get.
I am not a vindictive or vengeful person, but I can't help but wonder
whether they would be attempting this sort of fraud in a society that
punished frauds and other thieves by hanging them from the nearest
tree, or at least locking them away for a very long time?
Joe
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
