Linux-Advocacy Digest #207, Volume #28 Thu, 3 Aug 00 13:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Fred Moody and BugTraq: Is Someone Lying About Linux? (Chris Lee)
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Fred Moody and BugTraq: Is Someone Lying About Linux? (Mikey)
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one of
Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (SemiScholar)
Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (SemiScholar)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (bgeer)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (abraxas)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (abraxas)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Fred Moody and BugTraq: Is Someone Lying About Linux? (Sitaram Chamarty)
Re: Bennett digest, volume 4 (Tholen) (tholenbot)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fred Moody and BugTraq: Is Someone Lying About Linux?
Date: 3 Aug 2000 16:15:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>
>Chris Lee wrote:
>
>> Actually, This doesn't mean what you think it means. The other distros
still
>> have the same problems but 90% of the time it's RedHat who makes the
>> annoucement basically because they are usally the first ones who run
across
>> the problem and make a public annoucement about it.
>
>Yeah, even if you can ignore Moody's arithmetic cluelessness, there is a
>serious question as to whether fewer security reports actually means more
>secure software. We already know that all complex software has bugs. If
the
>white hats aren't finding security problems, does that mean the black hats
>aren't? Maybe we're safest running the systems with the *most* entries on
>BugTraq.
Exactly.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 12:18:54 -0400
SemiScholar wrote:
>
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 02:59:41 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The Constitution itself makes it clear what laws are constitutional
> >> >and what laws are not. If there is still any confusion, then the
> >> >authors of the document can be consulted, via their writings in
> >> >"The Federalist Papers," "The Anti-Federalist Papers" and the like.
> >>
> >> There isn't anything in the Constitution that specifies the use
> >> of the Federalist Papers for clarification of its contents.
> >
> >The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers are a series
> >of letters published in the various newspapers (of Philadelphia,
> >New York, and others), under pseudonyms, as a public debate as
> >to whether the Constitution should be adopted.
> >
> >John Jay and James Madison were two of the men involved.
> >One of the authors remains anonymous to this day (Publius, I believe)
>
> They were all signed "Publius". And BTW, the "anonymous" author you
> didn't know about was Alexander Hamilton, but don't tell anybody -
> he's still anonymous.
>
> <chuckle>
>
> But then what do you expect from someone who still thinks Unix is
> cool.
>
Spoken like a true dork.
Windows is JUST accomplishing a *few* of the technological
feats accomplished by Unix back in the 1970's.
In other words, the only OS that's 25 years behind the times
is....Windows!
> - SemiScholar
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fred Moody and BugTraq: Is Someone Lying About Linux?
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 01:25:35 -0400
Thus Sprake [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> One could also bother to acknowledge the figures for the other
> Unixen in the comparison.
>
> His 'rah rah windows' rant also ignores those numbers.
Having been a Micro-$erf, Fred Moody probably doesn't know beans about
Unix/Linux (or it's *waaaay* outdated knowledge). Scanning through his
archives, he *must* be getting some kick-backs for M$ promotion in the
media.
Notice that he doesn't have an e-mail address listed and they don't have
a discussion board on the ABC website. This must be so Fred Moody can
spew horsesh*t without letting anyone prove this Micro-croney wrong.
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam
possit materiari?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SemiScholar)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one
of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 16:29:15 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 14:19:23 GMT, "Marcus Turner"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"SemiScholar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >but merely yet another political body,
>>
>> No - they are not political. That's why they are appointed for life.
>
>Perhaps Partisan would be a better word. There are distinct tendencies
>within the group.
I don't think that's accurate either. I think they are not "partisan"
just because they have opinions about how the world should and does
work. But that doesn't make them "Democrat" or "Republican". I think
they are always free to view the world on the "liberal/conservative"
continuum as they choose, but that's not "politics", that's
"philosophy".
- SemiScholar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SemiScholar)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 16:35:50 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 14:23:27 GMT, "Marcus Turner"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"SemiScholar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> And BTW - Microsoft didn't write MS-DOS.
>
>Eh, Yes they did. They bought PC-Dos from a Seattle software company but
>they wrote MS-Dos.
Same thing, my friend. "PC-DOS" was just the name on the version sold
by IBM. But they were identical. Of course, after they bought it,
they began _modifying_ it, and I'm sure by the release of, say,
version 5 or so, there was little of the original code left, so I
suppose you could say they "wrote" it in that sense.
>
>Of course, the guy who wrote PC-Dos at the other company was working for MS
>at the time they wrote MS-Dos, so it's easy to get confused...
I don't think that's correct. They guy (Tim Patterson, I believe)
sold the rights to his CP/M clone (which he simply called DOS, a
commonly used name in those days for a number of O/S's) to Microsoft,
but I don't think he ever went to work for them. In any case,
"PC-DOS" and "MS-DOS" were identical except for the marketing name.
- SemiScholar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 11:23:31 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well, at least you post pro-Linux posts in the Linux newsgroup. Drestin
> > > > on the other hand...
> > > >
> > > > Annoyance factor: Drestin > Aaron
> > > >
> > >
> > > Unless your name is Drestin Adress
> >
> > True enough. But, that's the beauty of perspective.
> >
> > To Windows advocates, even the most reasonable *nix advocate is a
> > trollish idiot.
>
> Which is why I adopted the policy of being completely "unreasonable"
> in my intolerance for stupidity. I use the full force my Purdue
> education to soundly beat the stuffing out of any MS-Losevocate
> who tries to trout out the standard MS marketing bilge.
>
> Those who carry water for a tyrant deserve to be tortured and
> humiliated.
>
Yeppers. Which is why I say you aren't as annoying as Drestin, or Kurt
Angle (where we started). You at least have a point, while most of the
time Dresty doesn't, other than to piss people off. Why else would you
post Windrivel into a *nix group.
And I know that this is cross-posted. I'm not removing the cross-post
for the integrity of the thread. Maybe sounds stupid, but I think
people that pull a thread out of a group just to bad-mouth the people
that are in that group are cowards, and no better than the people that
originally cross-posted to begin with.
I've got nothing against Windows advocates in general, just against
those that consider it important to piss off *nix advocates by entering
their domain to proclaim what shit we use with no logical information to
back them up.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bgeer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: 3 Aug 2000 10:32:32 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>bgeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8m9rhr$6iq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Windows people tought us the "three-finger salute" & what "BSD" means.
>The "three-finger salute" Ctrl-Alt-Del was on the PC from the beginning long
>before Windows.
Ok, if we're picking nits, the same collective brought us both.
> To avoid confusion with BSD unix, it would be better to use
>BSoD for the infamous blue screen.
I agree. Yet I find it compelling that mentioning "BSD" in a
Microsoft context is never misunderstood! On the other hand,
pronouncing BSoD as "bee sod" sort of appeals to my warped sense of
humor.
--
<> Robert Geer & Donna Tomky | * <>
<> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | _o * o * o <>
<> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -\<, * <\ </L <>
<> Salt Lake City, Utah USA | O/ O __ /__, /> <>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 11:33:38 -0500
On 3 Aug 2000 10:27:07 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 3 Aug 2000 00:01:52 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Seems like an amazing amount of trouble when simply buying a Win98
>>>>>>machine in the first place is really what the customer wants....
>>>>>
>>>>>Customers hardly ever want an OS. They want apps that are
>>>>>good enough and don't cost much. Windows gained it's popularity
>>>>>by being cheaper that the competition. Now it isn't, and
>>>>>with StarOffice the Linux apps are good enough.
>>>>
>>>>Then why don't we see Linux boxes shooting up in popularity?
>>>
>>>I guess you aren't looking...
>>
>>I'm looking at CUSA, BB, and the other local stores where people
>>commonly shop. Perhaps you can direct me to someone selling Linux
>>boxes there?
>
>Note that BB does sell an installed Linux embedded in the
>Tivo boxes from Phillips and Sony.
Note that this isn't a consumer PC; it's a VCR-like recording device
with no other functionality.
>Back to normal computers - did you buy yours from a local
>commodity retailer? Lots of people order direct from Dell,
>IBM, etc. too.
I made mine.
>>>But so far I don't know if
>>>anyone can preload StarOffice. When OpenOffice gets up
>>>to speed that will take care of itself. Add a few more
>>>pretty fonts and you are all set.
>>
>>When ? 2001? 2002? 2003?
>
>Judging from the plan to have OpenOffice source out by October
>I'd guess mid-2001 to have a mainstream-usable package. It
>will depend on how much functionality gets lost when the
>third-party-licensed parts are removed. Hopefully this
>won't be as hard to fix up as Mozilla. Meanwhile StarOffice
>works once you get it installed.
When do you think Linux will be viable in stores?
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:36:31 -0500
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8mbt5v$k3v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Is it just me, or is Aaron, a confirmed MS hater posting from Windows 98?
You need to reference the message so we can all look at the headers to
confirm it. If he is using 98 then he certainly looks foolish :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 3 Aug 2000 16:38:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Compaq doesnt even know what hot-swappable logic boards and gigabit
> backplanes
>> are yet.
>>
> Compaq may not, but Unisys do, and Unisys designed the box. I was privy to
> early design specs for this machine in 1997. It's x-bar architecture much
> like the E10K with 2GB/s of bandwidth for each CPU/Memory interface and is
> designed to have enough bandwidth in x-bar to take Itanium and future 64-bit
> CPUs. Features like hot-swap components are also designed into it as is a
> partitionable configuration (i.e. run it as 1x32way, 2x16way, 1x16+2x8 etc.)
> This truly is a mainframe architecture much like the E10K,
The E10000 is not mainframe architecture...:)
> the only
> significant difference being that it uses Intel processors and runs NT (and
> IIRC Solaris x86)
For hot-swappable components to be useful, certian functionality must be built
into the core operating system---for example, a way to pop off everything running
on a cpu and then cut power to its physical interface, then restore power to
its interface and re-integrate it into the cluster (domain, res., etc). Such
things are absolutely not possible under windows, period. They ARE possible
under solaris/eeprom, AIX, etc.
The alleged attempt to port windows to this platform is akin to microsoft only
giving compaq access to things like App Server betas (so that compaq will be
the only hardware company prepared for its release)---microsoft is digging its
own grave very quickly at this point, and it is only a matter of time before
even very large companies realize that the fake money that theyve been
spending on technology is indeed NOT unlimited. Then theyll have lots of
decisions to make all about how much money theyre going to be willing to
give microsoft.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 3 Aug 2000 16:41:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Drestin Black wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Drestin Black wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > > You dare to claim "unix boxes are essential to running
>> microsoft.com?"
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes. And based on the existance of Unix boxes at microsoft.com,
>> > > > Microsoft believes this, too.
>> > >
>> > > Prove it or continue to be considered the poorest liar on usenet
>> > >
>> >
>> > Look who's making accusations of spreading lies...
>>
>> Prove it or continue to be considered the poorest liar on usenet.
>
> Aren't you the guy who claimed to be a good programmer, and then
> posted an Endian-switch algorithm using string functions?
>
Months ago he also claimed to know all about UNIX and then was found to
not even know what 'su' does.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 12:40:12 -0400
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" escribi�:
> >
> > Stuart Fox wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > Again, you are an old money advocate. You are saying that how well a kid
> > > does
> > > > > should be causally related to how much money their parents have. This
> > > > > is a shining example of your survival-of-the-fattest philosophy.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong. "How well a kid does" is determined by how well he applies
> > > > himself in school.
> > > >
> > > Wrong. There's been plenty of studies that show that children from lower
> > > socio economic areas perform worse academically than those from higher socio
> > > economic areas.
> >
> > 1. One low-income adults are from the lower-end of the intelligence pool
>
> 146 IQ.
> Lived for 6 years on under 5K a year.
1. College doesn't count.
2. Are you foolishly attempting to feed kids on that?
3. are you going to retire at that income level?
A) yes
B) no
>
> You figure it out.
I did. See above.
>
> > 2. Intelligence is genetically linked. Correlation > 0.5 (where
> > a correlation of 1.0 is absolute correlation)
>
> Did you ever take a statistics class?
> What are the two variables you are correlating?
>
> (Hint: genetics is not a variable).
For statistical analysis, it is.
> What statistical tests are taken to consider if the
> correlation is statistically significant? (no, >0.5 is not one).
Read The Bell Curve, and get back to us.
>
> I HAVE read about research done considering correlation of
> parents IQ to their children's, and it is nowhere near from
> showing "genetic linkage", because, the environment where the
> children are raised tends to be like the one where the parents
> were, so "genetic linkage" is not a measurable independent variable.
"Seperated Identical Twins" studies contradict your assertion.
>
> If you want to do this seriously, consider a control group made
> of adopted children that didn't know they were adopted (to
> prevent influence by trauma), which had no congenit deseases
> (to avoid skewing), who were not children of malnourished
> mothers (to prevent developmental disadvantages).
>
> Of course noone has done this yet, AFAIK.
Again, this information can be culled from the studies
about Identical Twins seperated at birth.
>
> > Thus, it is no great surprise to find out that the stupid children
> > of stupid low-income adults do worse academically than the smart
> > children of smart high-income adults.
>
> There is statistical proof about how malnourishing as a child
> is significantly correlated to lower IQs as an adult.
>
> So, your "let's starve the poor" idea only makes the poor dumber.
I never said such a thing.
What I am saying is that the taxpayers don't *owe* the poor 3
meals and a house. It should be the right of every citizen to
*CHOOSE* who they want to help, how much, and under what conditions.
True charity for the 'down on their luck' takes the form of work,
so that there is good incentive to get back into the regular work
force as soon as possible.
>
> If you want smart people, feed them.
Over-nutrition is just as bad as malnutrition.
>
> > > There's a lot of factors that come into it, but it boils
> > > down to the poorer you are, the worse you will likely perform academically.
> >
> > The less intelligent you are, the poorer you are.
> > The less intelligent you are, the less intelligent your kids will be.
>
> The poorer you are, the worse you feed your kids.
> The worse you feed your kids, the less intelligent they are.
> The less intelligent they are, the poorer they will be.
>
> > There is complete agreement on this matter by all involved in
> > the field of human intelligence research.
>
> Complete agreement? Yeah, sure.
what part of "INVOLVED IN the field of human intelligence research"
do you not understand?
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:51:03 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Is it just me, or is Aaron, a confirmed MS hater posting from Windows
98?
>
> I munge the headers using SED.
>
> Keeps the hackers confused.
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
Yet your ICQ number shows your "digital age". The Java version wasn't
around when you signed up. You used Windows to sign up and you probably
still are now. You know that when we post proof that you are using Windows,
your credibility will be completely gone. Not that there's that much to
loose.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sitaram Chamarty)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fred Moody and BugTraq: Is Someone Lying About Linux?
Date: 3 Aug 2000 16:51:26 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 23:16:11 -0500, Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yeah, even if you can ignore Moody's arithmetic cluelessness, there is a
>serious question as to whether fewer security reports actually means more
>secure software. We already know that all complex software has bugs. If the
>white hats aren't finding security problems, does that mean the black hats
>aren't? Maybe we're safest running the systems with the *most* entries on
>BugTraq.
Someone once pointed out that until late 97 or so, Microsoft had
not submitted a single vulnerability report to CERT. I remember
checking at that time and finding it to be more or less true. The
story was that customers, VARs, and developers were finding all
sorts of holes but MS refused to post them on CERT. (I believe
the term was VIB - Vendor Initiated Bulletin?, iirc).
Not until pressure to be more open about their problems (yeah,
right!) mounted, and the problems themselves became more visible
to the general public (everyone has heard of Melissa, and I mean
*everyone*, not just folks in the industry!), did they decide to
start sending out info to CERT.
That's not to say that MS is open about it now; I certainly can't
prove it but my gut feel is that they announce the ones that
someone else is bound to announce anyway and hush the rest :-)
So yes - I'm sure we're a lot safer with a system where the bugs
are being announced as soon as they are found, instead of being
hushed up!
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bennett digest, volume 4 (Tholen)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 12:54:49 -0400
In article <LU9i5.65$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Else it's just a whole lot of hot air coming from the old geyser.
> >
> > Illogical. How predictable. Still flying around irrelevant airspace in
> > your hot water balloon, Malloy?
>
> Irrelevant, Eric. Meanwhile, I see you still haven't replied to my
> post with subject 'Re: Bennett digest, volume 3 (Tholen)'. Why is that,
> Eric? Have you finally realised that you have lost the argument, but
> are to embarrassed to admit it?
How ironic, coming from someone who failed to repsond to my last Pestov
digest:
http://x56.deja.com/%5BST_rn=ps%5D/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=652263710
Where is this alleged post of yours, Slava?
--
What alleged "antispam.ham"? Typical ham specificity problems.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
