Linux-Advocacy Digest #462, Volume #26 Thu, 11 May 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Not so fast... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Slashdot is down (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (JEDIDIAH)
Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security. (Perry Pip)
Re: Bob's newsreader ONCE AGAIN fails to tell him that he's crossposting. Or is he
just a moron? ("Sam Morris")
Re: Once again, Bob flaunts his, er, Newbiness ("Sam Morris")
Re: Not so fast... (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Not so fast...
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 21:24:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 11 May 2000 17:25:10 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I think you might want to check the spelling on that word :)
Indeed, I see "fellate" and "fellatio", but no "fellatiate".
Note that "fellate" = "to engage in fellatio", so I know
I'm close... :-)
Of course, Jeff might simply have been searching for a synonym of
"to suck"...although I for one don't make such a judgement (since
all the context for this particular subthread has been lost
anyway, how can I tell? :-) ), and would avoid telling somebody
that "they suck". (I'd instead say "your idea sucks", perhaps, and
explain why. :-) )
>
>
>On 11 May 2000 14:51:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>
>>Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Odd.. I've had a number of people here tell me I fellatiate
>>
>>Dont listen to them. Theyre just bullies.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----yttrx
>
>TheCat (Steve)
>
>"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- who is glad this isn't an oral discussion... :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 21:27:54 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 18:32:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
>
>> On Thu, 11 May 2000 17:30:26 GMT, Sierra Tigris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >JEDIDIAH posted May 11 re: Re: How to properly process e-mail
>> >
>> >| A person should not "need" to be "smart" merely to "open" something.
>> >| That rather defeats the point of an ease-of-use system.
>> >
>> > This response is totally idiotic. Next
>>
>> No it isn't.
>>
>> You MS Shills will make plenty of noise about computers needing to
>> be like toasters when it suits you.
>
> There, you just proved it. I am NOT a MS shill you moron. I use Linux
Well, sometimes the Razor can slice the wrong way when you iterate
it only once...
>and only Linux. I agree that there is no excuse for the shoddy programming
>that MS gives out, but still, there is such a thing as personal responsability
Bullshit.
Part of what an Operating System does for and end user or an
administrator is setup a sane operating enviroment. Security
should first be the concern of the distributor, THEN the end
user.
One cannot conveniently blame the end user for some lapse on
the part of Redhat or Microsoft. Both parties are PAID for
their expertise.
>and that is what I was saying, your response to my post was moronic in that
>it didn't address what I said, only what you imagined I said. You do that
>quite often.
Defaults should always be sensible, even under Unix at a bash prompt.
Blaming the user simply is not an excuse for piss poor system design.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Slashdot is down
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 21:28:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 11 May 2000 16:59:19 GMT <8feot7$2kqq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Slashdot is down.
>
>> They always have had their share of technical problems,
>> which is quite embarrassing for a technology forum.
>
>Its working fine for me. Its been a little shakey for the
>past couple of hours, probably due to the extraordinary rise
>in traffic due to microsoft's latest incredibly stupid move.
Do you mean the one where a hostile website can get its hands in
your cookie jar, or the one where Microsoft asks to remove
readers' posts, or ... ? :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Microsoft. Where do you want to fall down today? :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 21:31:01 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 15:14:50 -0500, Mr Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>
>> >
>> > Why bother with email if you have to exchange the information some
>> > other way first? I thought it was supposed to be making things
>> > easier.
>>
>> That statment is tottally idiotic. We were talking about not opening
>> and ATTACHEMENT until you knew what it was about,
Not an MS Shill, my ass.
You are stuck in a strictly Windows mentality.
You can very much open an attachment quite safely before knowing
what it's about. One simply does not need to EXECUTE an attachment
just because one is 'opening' it.
>
>And exactly what process is involved in knowing what an attachment is about
>until one can open the attachment? Perhaps a good night's sleep will revel
>the contents of the attachment, or perhaps rubbing a magic bottle, or perhaps
>just staring at the attachment will revel its contents.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 21:34:38 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 18:36:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
>
>
>> > Are you truly that stupid? Who said not to use it? Go away.
>>
>> You did, effectively.
>
> Oh, I see, telling people to PROPERLY use their eMail programs is
>the same as telling them not to use it? Fuck off moron.
If people can't even 'read' their mail, then of what point is
their mail?
Those of us here in the real world, those of us that actually
have to work for a living, need to be able to exchange information
in the performance of our job duties on a daily basis and to
effectively collaborate.
Needing to assume any attachment to be dangerous severely impacts
one's ability to exchange data, even inert data.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 21:36:31 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 08:06:21 -0700, John Culleton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The openness of open systems in theory renders them more vulnerable
>to attack by crackers (after all, they have the source code!)
It also enables people to audit the code and fix holes in it right away.
>Sendmail has had and may still have security holes which is a
>good argument for using another mail client instead.
Sendmail is not an email client. If you don't even know that, you
certainly don't know much about security.
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bob's newsreader ONCE AGAIN fails to tell him that he's crossposting. Or
is he just a moron?
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:38:21 +0100
> > That still doesn't indicate that MS's ONLY reason for the message was to
> > drive them out of the market. That's the message i'm responding to, the
> > fact that driving them out of the market is not the only possible reason
> > for it.
>
> You are an unwelcome intruder here. Justifying the actions of a convicted
> criminal organization and its employees is not the purpose of this group.
And just where *is* here? If you bothered to check exactly WHERE you were
sending your messages before hitting the Send button you JUST MIGHT POSSIBLY
notice, ONCE AGAIN, that YOU ARE CROSS-POSTING to four different advocacy
groups. I wonder how many times you'll do it again in this thread?
Guess what: messages cross-posted from another NG *DON'T NECESSARILY* have
to only apply to your Nazi-like interpretation of comp.os.os2.advocacy's
charter! Who died and made you the On Topic Police, anyway? For gods sake
man, this is the Internet! If Bill Gates had a penny for every off-topic
post I see on Usenet... oh wait... need I finish this sentence? :)
Now, go back to your little OS/2-advocacy-only world and let other more
mature adults in the other groups carry out a discussion about MS's
competitive mores.
> If you continue to post in this newsgroup, you will find post attacking
> you in every newsgroup in which I find your name.
How mature. Yes, how dare anyone disagree with you! You go girl!
--
Sam Morris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"You can take my Mac when you pry the mouse from my cold, dead fingers."
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once again, Bob flaunts his, er, Newbiness
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:48:24 +0100
> > We also know from many other places that DRDOS does/did have memory
> > management compatibility problems (try playing some "cutting edge" (at
> > the time) games on DRDOS).
>
> The only idiots making such claims here are intruders like you who don't
> belong here. This newsgroup is not intended to promote anything other than
> OS/2. It most especially is not a playground for Bill Gates' suckups like
> you.
>
> GO AWAY!!!
You know, each time I see one of your posts, it's like a little part of me
dies. This is the third time that you've attacked an innocent bystander.
Look at where you are posting before you post the bloody message next time?
(Aside: Anyone want to place bets on how long it'll take before Bob,
Commissioner of the OS/2 Secret Police realises that he's reading messages
that have been cross posted?)
--
Sam Morris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Not so fast...
Date: 11 May 2000 21:57:35 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, Jeff might simply have been searching for a synonym of
> "to suck"...although I for one don't make such a judgement (since
> all the context for this particular subthread has been lost
> anyway, how can I tell? :-) ), and would avoid telling somebody
> that "they suck". (I'd instead say "your idea sucks", perhaps, and
> explain why. :-) )
*sigh*
Christ man, sometimes I wish you had all been english majors.
The word 'fellatiate' was chosen because its rhythm is similar
to the original, and its spelling was of course [sic]. I felt
that adding a [sic] to the end of that sentence would have
tragically detracted from its profound and multi-tiered meaning.
So there.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
