Linux-Advocacy Digest #555, Volume #34 Wed, 16 May 01 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: M$ spying (was Re: Win 9x is horrid) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Win 9x is horrid ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: FrontPage clone? (David Kaczysnki)
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mercury (was: No More Linux!) ("Joel Barnett")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Brent R)
Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ spying (was Re: Win 9x is horrid) (Peter Hayes)
Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x.... ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st ("Edward Rosten")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Win 9x is horrid ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (.)
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (quux111)
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (.)
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st (Terry Porter)
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.privacy.spyware
Subject: Re: M$ spying (was Re: Win 9x is horrid)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:39:46 -0500
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dtifl$3kd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : You people really amaze me. You are so paranoid about the activation
> : scheme, and refuse to believe MS when they say something. If you think
> : about it, if they wanted to collect information about you, they could do
it
> : without activation and send encrypted packets out that would be
impossible
> : to detect.
>
> : MS doesn't need activation to spy on you if they want to, so I don't see
the
> : big fuss over this.
>
> The moment I suggest in any other context that M$ could and almost
> certainly did do this already . . . most of the Winvocates go
> catatonic, claiming that this was impossible. Even those who aren't
> Winvocates accuse me of paranoia.
It would be paranoid.
> You folks can't have it both ways, so which is it? Is it possible
> for M$ to collect information about us, and send it in encrypted form
> to unnamed IP addresses, or isn't it?
Of course it is. Whether or not they *DO* is a different story. There are
plenty of laws this would violate, and not vague laws like the Sherman act
either. There have been cases where MS collected information that could be
used to violate privacy (the GUID on the registration for instance, or the
GUID in the Word documents) but this was an unintended side-effect of using
GUID's for unique numbers.
> And why, exactly, did my sole WinNT box - which was built with MSDN
> disks, has never had a routable IP address, and has no software not
> made by M$ - attempt to initiate connections to unnamed IP addresses,
> late at night, and, when allowed to do so, send seemingly random
> (probably encrypted) garbage thereto? And why do other insomniac
> firewall admins report similar behavior? And why did this only happen
> in the early morning, when most people would have been sleeping?
I've never seen this behavior from NT. Which NT? NT4? Win98 did this when
you had the "Channels" feature of IE4 installed, where it would try and
update its channels and other "offline" content late at night. Also, I've
seen software like the MSDN library, if the network isn't configured
properly, try to initiate a dialup connection when opened (it's looking for
an IP address on the internet first, rather than locally. This is due to
the way the routing tables are set up).
> Can I prove that it's M$ spying? Nope. The source is closed. But no
> one can prove that it wasn't, and there is a lot of circumstantial
> evidence strongly suggesting that it was. There isn't anyone else's
> software there, and the box has always been behind a masquerading
> firewall and thus is not likely to have been cracked. And M$ is not
> known for ethical behavior, even by the abysmally low standards of
> large multinational corporations in general. According to Occam's
> Razor, the simplest explanation for a given set of facts is the one
> most likely to be correct. I therefore conclude that M$ almost
> certainly already spies on at least some of its users at least some of
> the time.
That's not the simplest explanation. You are making the classic mistake of
attributing to malice, that which can easily be explained by stupidity.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:43:18 -0500
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <WrlM6.1009$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > MS uses encrypted data so that activation can't be spoofed. Otherwise,
> > you could simply watch the data, and generate your own "activation".
> >
> > "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> Ok, from c't, issue #9 (23/4-6/5/2001), german edition:
> >>
> >> "Our attempt to use a man-in-the-middle attack to listen in on the
> >> HTTPS connection between Windows-XP and Clearing House...failed: not
> >> only does XP encrypt the data, but it receives new certificates used
> >> for further communication...
> >> Extremely questionable is why Microsoft would go to such lengths to
> >> simply exchange a few numbers, especially since the numbers are already
> >> tied to the PC hardware.
> >> ...The amount of data exchanged during activation leaves all possible
> >> options open in the light of the complexity of the process: It is
> >> possible that aside from the necessary data...other information is
> >> exchanged, it is also possible that the bloat in the data traffic is
> >> caused by the certificates alone. C't advises not to use the online
> >> activation until Microsoft makes the process more transparent. In the
> >> meantime you're better off using the telephone."
> Yes, Erik,
>
> But that wasn't the point. Read it again, *please*?
I don't see how any other point can be derived from this.
It's complaining because the data is encrypted, then wonders why MS goes to
such lengths to pass the data. The answer is obvious, and the one I gave.
------------------------------
From: David Kaczysnki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: FrontPage clone?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:19:44 -0700
Reply-To: Remove the "." in "HUS.HMAIL" for valid email address
On Tue, 15 May 2001 09:12:46 +0200, Ernst Sexauer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In my personal opinion you
>dont do yourself a favour with frontpage - it creates a bunch of
>nonstandard html-codes.
That doesn't render properly on anything but MSIE!
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:48:34 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Anonymous wrote:
> >
> > Why did Eazel shutdown?
> >
> > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-5939697.html?tag=tp_pr
> >
> > What did it offer that the current Ximian GNOME 1.4
> > doesn't?
> >
> > --------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
> > Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
> > -----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
>
> Its obvious why they shutdown... capital venture is drying up!
Actually, Venture capital is not drying up. There are still lots of
companies getting new vc. The difference is that they're going back to
funding traditional models rather than questionable models with no solid
source of revenue.
------------------------------
From: "Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mercury (was: No More Linux!)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:19:38 -0700
"Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Joel Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >I like KMail too, but I still think Pegasus is THE best email client.
> > >Mercury is a very nice mail server too, both completely free, but alas,
> not
> > >available for Linux.
> >
> > You've got to be kidding me! We've had problem to no end with Mercury at
> > my POW (mail loops, server abends etc). Our Novell admins are now in the
> > process of migrating to NIMS Mail. The only real advantage that one has
> > with a Mercury/Pegasus combo is that it enables you to use native IPX to
> > talk to the mail server.
>
> Sounds like you're using the NLM version of Mercury. We're using the
version
> for windows, running it on a W2k pro box. Mail directories are on a
Netware
> 4.1 server. This setup is quite reliable. I have no experience with the
NLM
> version. We have about 75 users, so I don't know well our setup would
scale
> to a large user base.
>
> > Also, I don't know if I should blame Mercury or Pegasus for the
> > following case, but I suspect the former. User A sends a mail to user B
> > (who uses Pegasus as a client and a Mercury server). B "bounces" the
> > mail to user C. User C cannot see this in the MAIL FROM envelope header.
> > The reverse path is still set to user A. This is clearly incorrect and
> > IMHO in violation of rfc821 (now 2821).
> >
>
> I'll check this out. Seems like I remember seeing something about this on
> the pmail site or one of the pmail newsgroups.
I couldn't find where I saw this, but here's what happens on our system when
A sends to B, B forwards to C. (A,B and C are local Netware users).
C sees that the msg was from A, resent by B to C. If C clicks the reply
button, the to address is to A. I don't know whether this violates the rfc
or not. In our case Mercury has nothing to do with it. Local mail is handled
entirely by Pegasus.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Rob
> > --
> > Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
> > Computers have a lot in common with air conditioners:
> > Once you open WINDOWS, they stop working properly.
> >
>
>
jbarntt
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:50:45 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:9dliov$kjd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > In article <i5iL6.653$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik
Funkenbusch"
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:9dirc0$b0l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >> >You are trying to
> > > > > >> > propogate the FUD/lie that W2K is not capable of steller
uptimes.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 120 Days, according to Microsoft. Yeah, really stellar.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 120 days was the MEAN, not the maximum.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you know anything about statistics, then you'll know that
quoting
> > only
> > > > > the maximum is meaningless.
> > > > >
> > > > > 128 days MEAN _with_ a nightly reboot. Yeah stellar!
> > > > >
> > > > > (Mean: thererfore some actually crashed _before_ 120 days. Geez).
> > > >
> > > > Are you trying to suggest that there are no linux servers that ever
> > crash
> > > > within the first 100 or 200 days? I hate to tell you this, but
there
> > are.
> > >
> > > Not with nightly reboots.
> >
> > Then you're lying. I have a Linux machine here that crashes after 10
> > minutes of use. Of course it's got a flaky video card, but that's
beside
> > the point. Flaky hardware is included in the averages.
>
> Translation: "I, Erik Funkybreath, am a complete loser"
Translation: "I, Aaron Kookis, got caught saying something that wasn't true"
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 19:25:41 GMT
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> > This cracks me up coming from the linvocates who KEEP talking about linux
> > being free and saving money is so important...
> >
> > Lets park a file/print share server in the closet and let it's CPU and Mem
> > usage stay idle for years just cause a server is a server and a workstation
> > is where you run things, never the two shall meet. Sheesh... while I don't
> > see myself running many games on a server I #1) have no fear of doing it
> > cause, it's a computer, it's there to do what you want it to when you want
> > it to, it shouldn't be single tasked. #2) would do it just to piss off the
> > server elitists who'd cringe at the idea and #3) cause sometimes having a 0
> > ping kicks ass! <smile>
>
> Thanks, now I know why so many dot-con companys failed because people like you
> WEREN'T DOING ANY FUCKING WORK!
>
> Matthew Gardiner
All work and no play makes Matt a very angry boy.
--
- Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!!
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:53:41 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > If it's old news then Charlies right... you've been spreading FUD for
> > > quite a while now.
> > > But charlie has already provided you Trolls the correctly dated
articles
> > > ... and you still can't read.
> >
> > No, apparently Yahoo fucked up an reposted an old article as new. If
you
> > notice, the article does not appear on the front page.
> >
> > This *IS* the > 1 year old vulnerability, and it wasn't a backdoor,
despite
> > MS originally thinking it was. They later retracted it saying that the
> > message was not a password at all, but simply embedded into the code
while a
> > buffer overrun vulnerability did in fact exist.
> >
> > Yahoo is the *ONLY* news service that has this story, and guess what?
It's
> > disappeared. It no longer is on the link. You'd think someone, even
the
> > register would have picked this up. But they didn't. In fact, the
register
> > posted a story about how Yahoo fucked up.
> >
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/18975.html
>
> Then ya better tell that to Sun Microsystems then. They say its a new
> one!
They do? I can't find the link. Please provide it.
This is not the double decode bug that was recently discovered.
Further, how much evidence does it take? Now you won't even believe the
register, the place so many of you Linux advocates love to use as your
source of information.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:56:26 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dtnno$9dr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Now I've got virtual screens, it's another thing I find I have no need
> >> for, since I can edit in another virtual screen. All the fancy OLE
> >> stuff and edit in place and all that seemes to be necessary under
> >> Windows since it doesn't have a widely supported device independent
> >> display format. Under UNIX, just export as a postscript file and
> >> include that, and it works fine.
> >
> > How else would you edit an embedded document that you already have open?
>
> Er...? If the embedded document is open, then you are editing it. I dont
> think you meant that, so could you rephrase the question?
The document is open by the word processor. How do you edit the spreadsheet
data in a seperate application when the document is already opened
exclusively?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:58:25 -0500
"Sean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Dear Charlie
>
> Microsoft got DoD C2 Security for Windows NT by having it
> tested *without*any*network*connections*. Yes, that's right
> it's C2 certified, but only if it's not connected to anything!
This is no longer true, and hasn't been for a few years.
NT4 as of SP6a is both red and orange book certified.
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.privacy.spyware
Subject: Re: M$ spying (was Re: Win 9x is horrid)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 20:26:22 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 16 May 2001 14:39:46 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> You are making the classic mistake of
> attributing to malice, that which can easily be explained by stupidity.
And those that attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by malice
are exploited by the unscrupulous.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris,staroffice.com.support.install.solaris,comp.unix.advocacy,alt.os.unix,alt.unix
Subject: Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x....
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 21:35:04 +0100
> (gcc doesn't cut it for serious development, IMHO, especially
> for 64 bit stuff.)
GCC isn't that good on RISC architectures, but
it still compiles code just fine. Why not develop on GCC and then get one
other compiler for the final compilation?
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 19:35:51 GMT
On Wed, 16 May 2001 11:12:44 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Well, I'd say that it's the P.T. Barnum effect.
>A sucker born every minute.
Applications first.
Operating system second.
A basic principle.
flatfish
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 19:37:00 GMT
On Wed, 16 May 2001 14:48:34 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Actually, Venture capital is not drying up. There are still lots of
>companies getting new vc. The difference is that they're going back to
>funding traditional models rather than questionable models with no solid
>source of revenue.
Or no future market.
flatfish
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 21:39:21 +0100
> Problem is there are no pro quality applications to use the card, or any
> other high end card for that matter.
Why not write some tools then?
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 19:39:08 GMT
On Wed, 16 May 2001 16:43:35 GMT, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>My "problem" is that I'm amusing myself by getting you to make self-
>>contradictory statements.
>
>Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
Actually T-Bone, that's a compliment. My opinion is you make
absolutely no sense at all.
flatfish
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 21:45:07 +0200
In article <XlAM6.1104$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <WrlM6.1009$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > MS uses encrypted data so that activation can't be spoofed.
>> > Otherwise, you could simply watch the data, and generate your own
>> > "activation".
>> >
>> > "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> Ok, from c't, issue #9 (23/4-6/5/2001), german edition:
>> >>
>> >> "Our attempt to use a man-in-the-middle attack to listen in on the
>> >> HTTPS connection between Windows-XP and Clearing House...failed: not
>> >> only does XP encrypt the data, but it receives new certificates used
>> >> for further communication...
>> >> Extremely questionable is why Microsoft would go to such lengths to
>> >> simply exchange a few numbers, especially since the numbers are
>> >> already tied to the PC hardware.
>> >> ...The amount of data exchanged during activation leaves all
>> >> possible options open in the light of the complexity of the process:
>> >> It is possible that aside from the necessary data...other
>> >> information is exchanged, it is also possible that the bloat in the
>> >> data traffic is caused by the certificates alone. C't advises not to
>> >> use the online activation until Microsoft makes the process more
>> >> transparent. In the meantime you're better off using the telephone."
>> Yes, Erik,
>>
>> But that wasn't the point. Read it again, *please*?
>
> I don't see how any other point can be derived from this.
>
> It's complaining because the data is encrypted, then wonders why MS goes
> to such lengths to pass the data. The answer is obvious, and the one I
> gave.
>
>
>
Uh no,
Maybe because I have the German text beside me. They are complaining that
a) MS is sending new certificates, why are they necessary? and b) the
registration process is sending *too much* data to be the simple hash
that MS is telling us it should be (they do note that the amount of data
may be caused by the new certificates).
HTH
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 21:48:32 +0100
>> >> Linux improves for free. Guffaw.
>> >
>> > If your time is worth nothing...tee hee...
>>
>> If your time is worth nothing, install Linux.
>>
>> If both your time and money are worth nothing, then install Microsoft.
>
> I am convinced there is almost no way you attend oxford - unless your
> parents paid off admissions...
Hahahaha! LOL!
You checked the root of my email address then!
Well, I've got news for you buddy, my parents didn't pay off admissions
(that kind of stuff doesn't happen any more) and besides if they did, I
would have failed my first exams with flying colours and have been kicked
out. Oh, BTW I passed, so I'm good enough to stay here.
If you still don't believe me, go to the following URL:
http://users.ox.ac.uk
And look under my name under private pages. If you're lazy, here's a
short cut:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~scat1148/
-Ed
PS Hello!
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: 16 May 2001 19:51:37 GMT
pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>> Alright dipshit, for the last fucking time:
> Have you ever considered addressing people the the respect that they
> address you with ?
Only when they read for comprehension and make a habit out of not
ending sentences with prepositions.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (quux111)
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: 16 May 2001 19:14:20 GMT
pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> "." wrote:
>> Alright dipshit, for the last fucking time:
>
> Have you ever considered addressing people the the respect that they
> address you with ?
>
> *sigh*
I don't hold it against him; his lithium prescription is obviously running
low. He kind of reminds me of this old dude who used to ride the city bus
-- he was as kind and quiet as could be until someone mentioned the IRS,
but then whammo! he's start ranting until foam was flying from his mouth.
Now that I mention it...maybe yttrx *is* that old guy. Maybe he reserves
all his spleen for the IRS *and* questions of UNIX(tm) authenticity.
Hm!
quux111
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: 16 May 2001 19:53:21 GMT
Larry Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote in <9dsvo3$jsi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> "." wrote:
>>>>
>>>> pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> > "." wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I have. NVIDIA drivers w/ gforce2 and kernel 2.4-20 with certian
>>>> >> 3-D games.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Kernel panic, unrecoverable, hard lock.
>>>>
>>>> > And so you use binary proprietary drivers - and this proves what
>>>> > about the quality of 2.4 exactly ?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not saying that the 2.4 kernel sucks, you bitchass nutslap. I'm
>>>> saying that I can get it to lock consistently. I can also get the
>>>> FreeBSD kernel to lock, the BeOS kernel, windows NT 4.0, 2000, 98,
>>>> ME, XP, and also Solaris 7 and 8, HP/UX and SCO. A lockable kernel
>>>> doesnt mean its a piece of shit, it only means that I could get it to
>>>> do something that you insinuated might not be possible. :)
>>>>
>>
>>> How do you go about locking up say Solaris then??
>>
>>Easiest way is to fill up swap on bland installs...:)
>>
>>Ive also done it with poorly written opengl applications.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----.
>>
> The swap on my Solaris box has filled up, OS didn't lock. It stopped doing
> many processes until I released swap space and it kept right on running
> normally.
BLAND INSTALLS.
Christ, what the hell is the matter with you people? READ ALL OF THE WORDS,
NOT JUST THE ONES THAT MAKE YOU LOOK SMART.
Bastards.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 16 May 2001 19:58:27 GMT
On 16 May 2001 13:50:52 GMT,
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Terry Porter posted:
>>On Tue, 15 May 2001 19:11:27 +0700, Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 15 May 2001 22:26:06 +0200, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Well.. XEmacs runs on Windows - i have it installed - and GNUS is a
>>>>>excellent newsreader :-)
>>>>
>>>> I'm using slrn on NT4 right now.
>>>
>>> I've been working my way through all of them. Agent still runs
>>> circles around every newsreader I've ever seen, linux or
>>> otherwise.
>>
>>Except in areas of cost as only 'Free Agent' is gratis ?
>>
>>Personally I cant stand Agent or Pan, perhaps SLRN has spoilt
>>me.
>
> slrn is terrific, but you have to love console apps to love slrn.
I always run SLRN in a Aterm, in a virtual desktop (1 off 10) and
under whatever Wm I happen to be using this month.
My mouse selects the ng's etc, so while slrn is strictly a text app,
it's appearance on my system isn't much different to a GUI app.
>
> --
> Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: 16 May 2001 20:02:55 GMT
quux111 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> "." wrote:
>>> Alright dipshit, for the last fucking time:
>>
>> Have you ever considered addressing people the the respect that they
>> address you with ?
>>
>> *sigh*
> I don't hold it against him; his lithium prescription is obviously running
> low. He kind of reminds me of this old dude who used to ride the city bus
> -- he was as kind and quiet as could be until someone mentioned the IRS,
> but then whammo! he's start ranting until foam was flying from his mouth.
> Now that I mention it...maybe yttrx *is* that old guy. Maybe he reserves
> all his spleen for the IRS *and* questions of UNIX(tm) authenticity.
You know, you really dont get it do you.
If you want to be offended every time someone mentions the open group, more
power to you. I cant imagine walking through life with that kind of
uninformed, ignorant, pointless despisition though. You're very special.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
