Linux-Advocacy Digest #184, Volume #26 Thu, 20 Apr 00 05:13:26 EDT
Contents:
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Mayor)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Jason Bowen)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software? (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Mayor)
Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.) (abraxas)
Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.) (abraxas)
Re: Detonators 5.14 UP!!!!!!!! (abraxas)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: RHCE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (C Lund)
Re: Mandrake 7.0 Vs SuSE 6.4 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: 'To Be Up or Not To Be Up' (Mathias Grimmberger)
Re: Aide pour Suse Linux6.3 (Mig Mig)
Re: 'To Be Up or Not To Be Up' (Mig Mig)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Mig Mig)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
From: Mayor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:39:03 -0700
In article <gmgravesii-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, George Graves
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>George Graves wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't worry, I won't. I have learned that the only thing
>>> that Apple could ever do to please Wintrolls who post on
>>> CSMA is to roll over, belly-up and die. With Apple gone,
>>> they wouldn't have that little nagging voice in their head
>>> that keeps saying "did I choose the wrong platform?" Because
>>> with no Apple, there would be only ONE platform and
>>> the Wintrolls could sleep secure in their beds with no nasty
>>> Apple confusing them with that pesky Macintosh.
>>
>>A common misconception. PC owners are becoming increasingly
>>aware that there are alternatives to MS based products, thus
>>there are far for than "one" platform available.
>
>With what, pray tell, to run on them?
What do you run on your Mac, George? I keep hearing from certain
quarters that there's no software for it! :)
>
>
>
* 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: 18 Apr 2000 19:41:39 GMT
Their is currently a project to audit every line of the Linux kernel.
OpenBSD has been completely audited. I'm sure every line of NT has been
audited, by Microsoft that is.
In article
<8dibat$5gi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Connors) writes:
>
>>Hypothetically speaking, when was the last time you or anyone you
>>personally know looded at the Linux Source?
>
>Looked at *some* linux source code --- probably a week or two ago.
>Looked at *all* linux source code --- I don't personally know anyone who
>has done so.
>Looked at *significant amounts* of linux *kernel* source code --- a couple
>of months ago.
>
>>A backdoor hidden in the THOUSANDS of lines of code in the Linux
>>Kernel would go unnoticed untill someone outside hacked it as long as
>>it generated no network traffic.
>
>I don't think so --- let's, just for the argument, say there are 10 million
>linux users. Let's further say the 99.9% of them look at kernel code less
>than I do. That would leave 0.1%, or 10,000 people who look at kernel code
>at least as much as I do. The kernel currently has roughly 2 million lines
>of code. I have almost certainly looked at way more than 200 of those lines
>in the last month. Even allowing for overlap, 10,000 people looking at the
>kernel at least as much as I do will have an extremely high chance of
>spotting that backdoor within a month. And that is assuming you can even
>get it past Alan Cox and Linus "if I can't understand it, it's bad code"
>Torvalds in the first place.
>
>Bernie
>
>
>--
>The acid test of any political decision is, 'What is the
> alternative?'
>Lord Trent
>British Cabinet Secretary 1963-73
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: 18 Apr 2000 17:01:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram) writes:
[ about OSS being opaque ]
>
>Hypothetically speaking, when was the last time you or anyone you
>personally know looded at the Linux Source?
Me personally? About a month ago. I was just looking at the
implementation of the ext2 filesystem (wrt posix acls).
Someone I personally know? I have no idea, but I think *very* recently,
since two people I know personally are active Debian developers.
>Problem with the above example is that its a PRO-ACTIVE violation, that is
>it creats network traffic. This, of course, can be noticed by any
>standard firewall and its discovery has NOTHING to do with the fact that
>Linux is OSS.
Depends on the implementation. It is pretty simple to backdoor an HTTP
server or Mail server to respond with special packets when given certain
constrains, all within their own protocol. This will only be noticed by
the firewall if the protocol is prohibited from the outside to begin
with.
> The fact that it was fixed quickly has everything to do
>with Linux being OSS. There is a distinction to be made. A backdoor
>hidden in the THOUSANDS of lines of code in the Linux Kernel would go
>unnoticed untill someone outside hacked it as long as it generated no
>network traffic.
When the source is of reasonable size, the coders start using diffs more
and more, because it is easier to review. So even if a backdoor is
hidden in some obscure driver in the kernel source tree, it will be
easily spotted. A buffer overflow would be simpler to conceal, but these
are generally not included on purpose ;-`)
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
Anyway the :// part is an 'emoticon' representing a man with a
strip of sticky tape across his mouth.
-- R. Douglas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software?
Date: 18 Apr 2000 18:26:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Have you personally auditted every single line of code running on your
>> >computer to ascertain this ?
>>
>> No, I have not, and no, I don't need to.
>
>Why not ? What makes you trust the people you *think* (not know) have ?
It's called the law of the big numbers. There are many *independent*
people (who most of the time have never met each other in person)
reviewing the code, without being managed by some company policy. It is
not reasonably imaginable that all the thousands independent people are
conspiring together to conceal some backdoor. *That's* why my statement
is that strong.
>> It would be impossible for any
>> individual to audit every line of code that constitutes the Debian GNU /
>> Linux distribution, but several Debian developers do (as do may other
>> people, including security fanatics like Michal Zawenski en Theo de
>> Raadt (for those applications that are available for most Unixes,
>> including their own).
>
>Then how can you claim your software is backdoor free ?
see above.
>What about the (vast majority of) people who can't do their own code audits
>? Why should they trust other people to ? Why should these people be
>trusted any more (or less) than the engineers at Microsoft ?
The engineers at Microsoft do not speak for themselves. The company
issues a company statement, so it should be considered a single source.
That's the exact difference with open source. Anyone can join in and
voice their information based on first hand reviews.
Don't take my word for it, just take a look at Bruce Schneiers latest
Cryptogram at http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0004.html where you
will find a description of a clear cut backdoor in Windows that is
considered a "feature" (Active Setup after installing IE4 or IE5). Now
you show me a backdoor in some commonly used open source package.
>> Unlike buffer overflows or race conditions, backdoors stand out in
>> source code and impossible to hide (short of Ken Thompsons C compiler /
>> login binary trick, which is not applicable anymore).
>
>Not always. And what happens if no-one's bothered to *look* at that
>particular piece of source code ?
The way the open source community works, if it's going to be used, if it
is network aware, it's going to be reviewed. Extensively. Go lurk on
Bugtraq, and you will get the right impression.
>> Because of the peer review that the application in the Debian
>> distribution have undergone, especiallly the network aware applications,
>> I *can* state firmly that I'm running backdoor-free software.
>
>Even though you can't back that statement up ? Why are the "peers" doing
>the Debian code reviews any better than the "peers" at Microsoft, or any
>other company ?
They don't have a company policy they need to abide to.
>> Of course
>> I cannot guarantee the same for buffer overflows or race conditions, but
>> that's a whole other chapter.
>
>You can guarantee neither until you do it yourself.
That's called nitpicking. If you've seen the Matrix you know you cannot
really gaurantee you're really walking the street when you think you do.
In an environment that Ken Thompson described in '83, you would not be
able to guarantee it even if you did review all code yourself.
The law of big numbers enable me to guarantee that there's no backdoor
in the software I use. The single source of information makes that you
cannot make the same guarantee for closed source software. It's that
simple.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
So I have to ask. Is there a spreadsheet hidden in Microsoft Flight
Simulator?
-- Jim Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in a.f.c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible
Date: 18 Apr 2000 19:55:14 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I am at this very moment. As a matter of fact, I have my own news server
>> running on my notebook...
>
>Isn't that a bit overkill? And it usually requires you to get a peering
>relationship with your ISP. Is that something you expect an average person
>to be able to do?
Not at all. It doesn't draw many resources from the system and it gives
me extreme flexibility (like `suck`ing or `rpost`ing from/to different
ISP's (in my case, both my employer and my private ISP), choosing the
newsclient of the day <g> (I normally use slrn but occasionally I want
to see what a posting looks like in Netscape)).
As for the peering relationship, no you don't. You just need to filter
out the NNTP-Posting-Host and Xref headers when you do an rpost. The
filter is called by rhost itself, and yes, the average person can do
this because it is well documented.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
So I have to ask. Is there a spreadsheet hidden in Microsoft Flight
Simulator?
-- Jim Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in a.f.c
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
From: Mayor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:10:36 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> >"People" generally being Wintrolls who find that to be an
>> >undesirably complicated task...
>> I haven't yet met a Windows user who thinks its at all
>>complicated.
>
>Really? You should read this forum more often.
I'm not sure I could. ;)
>
>> But doesn't it seem odd to you that an OS whose main purpose
>>was to shield users from having to figure out settings expects
>>them to know about memory management?
>
>Strngely enough, I never found that to be a difficult thing to
>do. Even when I was fumbling around with my first mac, the IIsi.
At you shouldn't have. It isn't difficult. The real question is
why was it made that way? MacOS shields the user from how the
machine works in almost all ways but this. I'm sure there was a
logical, reasoned thought process that arrived at doing the
memory that way. I wonder what it was?
Of course we'll never find out here. Maccies and Mac users will
claim its how Apple does it so its the best of all possible
worlds and Mac bashers will use it as a point to hold up MacOS
for ridicule. This atmosphere generally doesn't lend itself to
serious fact finding of this sort.
* 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.)
Date: 18 Apr 2000 21:06:52 GMT
Andrew M. Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
>> Because GNU is not on the same development path as them. Theres no
>> reason to include it. I can install as many or as few GNU toys as
>> I like. Solaris is used for a variety of reasons, only some of which
>> are concurrent with the reasons commonly attributed to linux.
> This is silly; no one buys Solaris because it has a really good diff,
> and Sun could avoid having to put as much effort into maintaining the
> basic tools on their own.
Sun has no problem selling solaris without GNU or GNU-like utilities.
The people that buy solaris generally have different uses in mind than
people who consistently use linux.
I use both, but for very different reasons. I use solaris at work
mainly because I deal with almost exclusively Sun machines, and as
well as being easier on the brain to deal with one flavor of UNIX
backwards and fowards in my environment, it is *extremely* stable
and consistent in every way that I find useful.
I use linux at home because its easy and pretty and supports my weird
sound and video cards. And because its free.
> The tools would also be more powerful,
> because the GNU tools were explicitly written to avoid arbitrary
> 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.
As was posited elsewhere in this newsgroup recently, such things can be
done in any unix with minimal trouble. GNU utilities are not complex
beasts, and theyre arguably even more complex than they actually need
to be.
> 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?
Again, people dont use solaris for the same reasons they use linux.
Sun has no problems distributing their operating system with a fixed-
buffered sed. And as you saw for yourself, you can fix it if you like.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.)
Date: 18 Apr 2000 21:08:01 GMT
Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> csh is kept because there are slight differences between csh and tcsh, and some
>> users prefer csh over tcsh.
> Some do. But in my experience most do prefer tcsh over csh. So why put in
> csh as a default? Just because it always was? Then we could also have had
> plain sh as a default.
By the same token, why change the default because *you* are unhappy with it?
The nice thing about this issue is that you can make solaris do whatever you
want. If you dont like the way it works, change the way it works.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Detonators 5.14 UP!!!!!!!!
Date: 18 Apr 2000 21:10:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The 5.14 drivers (the subject here)
No. The NT 5.0 drivers are; the NT 4.0 drivers seem to know what
an NT 5.0 return during install is and can handle it naturally.
Moron.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 19:46:32 GMT
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:39:03 -0700, Mayor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <gmgravesii-
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, George Graves
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>George Graves wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Don't worry, I won't. I have learned that the only thing
>>>> that Apple could ever do to please Wintrolls who post on
>>>> CSMA is to roll over, belly-up and die. With Apple gone,
>>>> they wouldn't have that little nagging voice in their head
>>>> that keeps saying "did I choose the wrong platform?" Because
>>>> with no Apple, there would be only ONE platform and
>>>> the Wintrolls could sleep secure in their beds with no nasty
>>>> Apple confusing them with that pesky Macintosh.
>>>
>>>A common misconception. PC owners are becoming increasingly
>>>aware that there are alternatives to MS based products, thus
>>>there are far for than "one" platform available.
>>
>>With what, pray tell, to run on them?
>
>What do you run on your Mac, George? I keep hearing from certain
>quarters that there's no software for it! :)
Were I a Mac/MacOS user, I would be running Quake3, CivCTP
and SimCity 3000 (the same things I do/will run under Linux
incidentally).
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: RHCE
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:13:20 GMT
If anyone is looking for an sample test for the RHCE exam that they can
actually use, try looking at:
http://www.rhce2b.com
I built a sample test using basic html forms and a couple of perl
scripts. Feel free to add test questions (but don't add any questions
that are copywrighted by anyone else.)
Randy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Frank Pittel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy TARogue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : On 11 Mar 2000 16:28:08 GMT, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> : scribbled something about Re: RHCE:
> :>In comp.os.linux.advocacy S. Christopher Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> : I bought the Red Hat Certified Engineer Linux Study Guide, by
Syngress
> : Media, Inc., distributed by Osbourne/McGraw Hill. The first thing I
> : tried to do was take the practice exam to find my strengths and
> : weaknesses. Unfortunately, the test, though written in HTML, was
written
> : to by used by Internet Explorer.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:52:56 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mayor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At you shouldn't have. It isn't difficult. The real question is
> why was it made that way? MacOS shields the user from how the
> machine works in almost all ways but this. I'm sure there was a
> logical, reasoned thought process that arrived at doing the
> memory that way. I wonder what it was?
It's a matter for idle curiousity. Apple is retiring the MacOS (or
"dumping it", as some would rather put it), and replacing it with OS X.
I'd be very surprized if OS X still uses the same manual memory
allocation.
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mandrake 7.0 Vs SuSE 6.4
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:05:46 GMT
OOrkis wrote:
> If you've experienced both, please compare pros & cons
> Thanks
Suse 6.4 has more toy's.
As far as the ENGINE, QUALITY so on so forth, VERY VERY TUFF CALL.
Suse 6.4 has Reiser file system which Mandrake 7.0 doesn't have.
Mandrake 7.0 has Lothar automatic detection of hardware and SETUP which
Suse does not have.
Cut away the toys it's a draw. The Mandrake folks have made a
significant impact here.
Look at the price tag and Suse 6.4 wins.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 'To Be Up or Not To Be Up'
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:47:26 GMT
Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mathias Grimmberger wrote:
> > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > "C't" = German "The Register"
> > >
> > > 'nuff said
> >
> > Muhahahahaha! Bwahahahahaha! OH MY GOD.
> >
> > Well, I would certainly think twice before making a complete fool of
> > myself in front of a worldwide audience.
> >
> > It is easily possible that c't has been published for longer than you
> > have known about computers. :-)
>
> Isnt C'T only about 10 years old?
No, more like 17 years. Their website says it was founded in 1983. I
remembered they had an anniversary some time back but flinched at
searching through the heaps of old issues lying around here.
So c't has been published for longer than I have known about computers.
;-)
MGri
--
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eat flaming death, evil Micro$oft mongrels!
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aide pour Suse Linux6.3
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:28:37 +0200
Francis Van Aeken wrote:
> Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8dfmmm$l99$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Stephane mon cher..
> > C'est group est en anglais.. c'est pas un group francais.. Ici il n'ya
> > quelquen que parle francais et tu peux m'incluir.
>
> Il y a des gens ici qui parlent fran�ais, mais Mig Mig a raison, la langue
> "officielle" de cola est anglais...
Well .. the handle is only "Mig". The "Mig Mig" is due to a bug in my
prefered newsreader Knode 0.1.12 . I've corrected it before but am too lazy
to do it again - i simply forgot how.
> Francis.
>
> N.B. You're doing pretty good, Mig Mig. Except maybe for the accent... ;-)
Thanks Francis... but my French is 20 years old when i lived a Paris as a
child.. so i think im forgiven :-)
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 'To Be Up or Not To Be Up'
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:33:24 +0200
Mathias Grimmberger wrote:
> Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Mathias Grimmberger wrote:
> > > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > "C't" = German "The Register"
> > > >
> > > > 'nuff said
> > >
> > > Muhahahahaha! Bwahahahahaha! OH MY GOD.
> > >
> > > Well, I would certainly think twice before making a complete fool of
> > > myself in front of a worldwide audience.
> > >
> > > It is easily possible that c't has been published for longer than you
> > > have known about computers. :-)
> >
> > Isnt C'T only about 10 years old?
>
> No, more like 17 years. Their website says it was founded in 1983. I
> remembered they had an anniversary some time back but flinched at
> searching through the heaps of old issues lying around here.
>
> So c't has been published for longer than I have known about computers.
> ;-)
BTW.. since youre german. There was a wonderfull computer magazine called MC
wich was full of "dirty" tricks and code and intersting scientific
articles... I havent been able to aquire copies for many years now. Does MC
still exist?
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:39:03 +0200
Gary Connors wrote:
> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Craig Kelley at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 4/18/00 12:23 PM:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Connors) writes:
> >
> >> Hypothetically speaking, when was the last time you or anyone you
> >> personally know looked at the Linux Source?
> >
> > I did last week.
> >
> > I wanted to figure out why I couldn't have more than 8 SCSI CD-ROM
> > drives attached to the system.
> >
> > Regards.
>
> There are several Posibilities
> 1) You develop Linux
> 2) You are lieing
> 3) You are dillusional
>
> I have no reason to beleive 1 or 2
Yeah.. its hard to grasp that someone is "geeky" enough to review source
code.
Strangely this is done daily by students of computer science... Amazingly
enough even litterature about programming contains lots of code and
algorithms and analyses of code and the algorithms... People are weird.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
