Linux-Advocacy Digest #206, Volume #30 Mon, 13 Nov 00 03:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...) ("Les
Mikesell")
Re: Focus in Linux seems a bit cooky (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: OS stability (sfcybear)
Re: OS stability (sfcybear)
Re: OS stability (sfcybear)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Can you love a platform without being a bigot? ("Cat")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: 13 Nov 2000 07:11:16 GMT
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:02:45 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:27:43 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:yIKP5.86023$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:06:13 +0200,
>> >> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Because notepad is about as simple as application can get and still be
>> >> >useful?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Notepad is not useful.
>> >
>> >Editting small text files in not useful?
>>
>> He clearly didn't say that.
>
>That is the implication,
No it's not.
> as notepad is the primary tool for doing so in
>windows.
Not on any windows system I use, it isn't.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:11:44 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:AvJP5.126085$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> > After using Windows.Net no one will care how crash prone 9x was.
> >
> > Why would anyone keep doing business with the people who brought
> > you that?
>
> Why do you choose an OS that allows a root exploit every few days?
>
> Don't you have any respect for yourself?
I chose one with a much better record than anything from Redmond. You
can make up any contrived numbers you want by including the zillion
apps in a typical Linux distribution vs. notepad as the only app included
with windows, and including all versions of Linux vs. Win2k, but it
is just that: contrived. The few exploits on Linux have been fixed
immediately while it is months between service pack releases; meanwhile
somebody knows what brokenness they fix but you don't.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: 13 Nov 2000 07:15:06 GMT
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:00:58 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>> About a minute. In Linux, each user has their own group.
>>
>> However, this granular access control which is so nice in theory seems
>> to only be useful for .advocacy pissing contests. Especially since most
>> NT users seem to go for extremely lax file permissions anyway (for
>example,
>> all users have write access to system files on NT 4)
>
>Whose fault is that?
The default configuration is clearly the vendors responsibility. So if the
default configuration is absurd, the vendor (in this case, Microsoft) is at
fault.
>My systems, only admins can have full access to system files. (And even that
... Just like a UNIX machine in default configuration.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:16:35 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > However, this granular access control which is so nice in theory seems
> > to only be useful for .advocacy pissing contests. Especially since most
> > NT users seem to go for extremely lax file permissions anyway (for
> example,
> > all users have write access to system files on NT 4)
>
> Whose fault is that?
> My systems, only admins can have full access to system files. (And even
that
> is limited)
> Normal users has read & execute access, if they are lucky.
How many users with needs for unique programs and updates do
you support? What do they do whe( �ey need a change?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:23:22 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > Does anyone run large lists on exchange?
>
> Yes.
> I've seen 10,000 people list being managed by a simple vbs script, access
> database, and SMTP server (comes with win2k).
What does that have to do with exchange? I'm talking about having
exchange deliver a single message with 10,000 remote addresses
by itself - fairly often. Sendmail can do that although it appreciates
having a front end chunk the list up first so some deliveries will run
in parallel.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:31:42 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > > That isn't the problem.
> > > The problem is a MFT with millions of file listed in it.
> >
> > I think it was. At the time I had the problem I found other
> > people had similar experiences and were blaming it on
> > the fact that the MFT never shrinks.
>
> It grow to a certain size, controllable by the user.
That isn't the information I found at the time.
> It has nothing to do with how full the HD is, it has to do with the number
> of files it has.
> And I don't think that 1000 articles per day would have any affect at the
> matter.
> That would take three years to reach one million files, and the problem
only
> *begin* to appear when you've tens of millions of files.
> And, of course, you weren't collecting a 1000 per day.
> So this problem has nothing to do with the reason your system failed.
It had been running for at least a couple of years, crashing every two
weeks or so on the average. You make it sound like you think 3
years is a long time to run something.
> > > And it doesn't kill the system, it slows it down.
> >
> > Well if you want to be technical about it *I* killed it after it
> > had crashed (perhaps an unrelated reason) and had not
> > completed its chkdisk (or scandisk or what ever that blue-screen
> > thing a startup is) after running over a three day weekend.
>
> That has nothing to do with the problem we are talking about.
> The only thing that slows down is the creation of new files, since this
> isn't what we are talking about, you'd other problems.
So perhaps there is yet another problem that we don't know about.
It was a problem that got worse over time, with the chkdisk after
each crash taking longer than the previous, but perhaps by a
few minutes each time - an noticable trend but not extreme. The
last one that worked might have taken close to an hour.
> > It is easy enough to test if you aren't afraid of the result.
>
> I don't have a NT4 around that I could experiment with, and this problem
> doesn't affect 2000.
How can you be sure? Nobody told me it was going to happen to
this NT box either.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:35:58 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:g9JP5.10732$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> It's also poignant to note that this takes only a few minutes on a large
> drive as opposed to the lengthy and seemingly unending fsck on a large
> ext2 drive. The journaling of NTFS facilitates a speedy recovery.
>
> -Chad
You can note whatever you want, but in my experience, the blue-screen
chkdisk step of NTFS recovery takes about the same amount of time
as an e2fs check for a drive containing about the same number of
files. And I had a pathological case on NTFS where I gave up after
a few days.
ReiserFS is very fast in recovery by comparison to either.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Subject: Re: Focus in Linux seems a bit cooky
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:46:39 GMT
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 03:11:03 GMT, Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|What am I doing wrong here or what am I miss understanding:
|
|I click on an application, say a news client, do some work, then i click
|on the terminal icon to get a command line. Up pops the term window
|front and center with a blinking cursor so I start typing. But guess what
|nothing appears in the term window cause the news client actually still
|has focus behind the terminal window. What gives?
|
|Or how about this. I'm using an application and I use the menu to bring
|up a preference dialog. I need to type something into an edit field and
|even though it is the first control on the dialog I have to press tab to get
|the cursor to show in it. So now with the cursor displayed I start typing,
|nothing shows up. So I actually use the mouse and click in the edit box.
|Ok, now I can actually type something in it.
|
|But wait, oops, I miss spelled a the directory path, so I use my mouse and
|put the cursor on the letter I transposed, and mose the mouse cursor to the
|side (off the dialog) and try to edit the error, but nothing is happening. I
|finally manage to get this to work by moving my mouse cursor just a little
|bit to the side of the place I'm editing and voila! it works....now this doesn't
|happen all the time it happens intermittantly and it seems to affect a lot of
|different applications not just the same ones.
|
|What is up with this!?! I feel like an idiot...!
|
|Is this the way things are suppose to work? Is this a window manager problem?
|
|FYI, I'm using KDE at work and Helix Gnome at home.
My guess is that you are using "Focus Follows Mouse". This is actually
my prefered method for using X windows, as it allows me to type into
a background window while reading prompts from the window in front, a
great help when doing directions like this.
You seem like you want to use "Click to Focus".
Start up your KDE control center, go to "Look & Feel", then
"Window Behaviour" and "Actions". There will be a pull-down menu in
the bottom of the screen in the section called "Focus Policy".
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:28:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> >
> > In article <8um3k5$onk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In article <ColP5.7666$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > >
> > > > I suppose you don't change the oil in your car either. The
whole
> > Oil
> > > > Changing thing is a ruse designed to sell more oil and is
completely
> > > > unneccesary. Right?
> > >
> > > I don't have oil in my computer! I don't have ANYTHING that
REQUIRES
> > > regular changing. Please povide documented evidance were a
computer
> > > manufacture recomends changing ANYTHING the way car manufactures
> > > recomend changing OIL!
> > >
> > > Your loosing it franky!
> > >
> >
> > Whoosh!
> >
> > What was that?
> >
> > Just another analogy shooting over Matt's head...
>
> What part of a computer needs regular maitenance, exactly?
Thanks! the idiotic stuff that these guys are posting is getting out of
control!
>
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
>
> H: "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"
>
> I: Loren 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
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues
against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:25:14 GMT
In article <oSKP5.7875$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8unr88$202$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <rnJP5.7857$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8unm39$u07$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > No, the exploits mentioned do *NOT* require a certain socket.
> > *ANY*
> > > > socket
> > > > > is susceptable to the exploit. it's quite easy to scan a
system
> > to
> > > > see
> > > > > which ports are open and send malformed packets to any of
them.
> > The
> > > > problem
> > > > > is in the core code that effects all sockets, not in
individual
> > > > services.
> > > > > The same TCP code is used by any socket implementation you
use.
> > > > >
> > > > please provide proof of this, since the page you posted did not.
> > >
> > > Use your brain.
> > >
> > > How could a bug effect only a particular port? Only 2 ways.
> > >
> > > 1) There is some hard coded special case code in the general IP
stack
> > > relating to only that port number. I don't know of any such code
in
> > any IP
> > > stack.
> > >
> > > 2) The service using the stack, that opens the specific port
number
> > has the
> > > bug. Not the general TCP code.
> > >
> > > Additionally, since it's in the TCP code, and not the UDP code,
that
> > means
> > > that only connection oriented protocols are effected, which
further
> > > illustrates that it's a general TCP code failure, otherwise it
> > wouldn't be a
> > > kernel patch since userland sockets are a library.
> >
> > I have no repect for your technical skills at this point. As the
kernel
> > patch that I have discribed before the PATCH is in the KERNEL but
the
> > EXPLOIT REQUIRES SENDMAIL which IS a USERLAND UTILITY!!!! Get rid of
> > sendmail and the kernel nolonger needs to be patched because the bug
can
> > not be exploited! So, you have proven NOTHING HERE! It is COMPLETELY
> > POSSIBLE FOR THE EXPLOIT TO REQUIRE A USERLAND SOCKET FOR THE
EXPLOIT to
> > be successful!!!! In this case, even shutting down the socket in the
> > services file might stop the attack.
>
> Strange. I just did a complete review of each kernel patch summary,
and the
> word "sendmail" doesn't exist in any of them. Which kernel patch are
you
> referring to?
>
Keep up with the treads you post to. It's there franky or are you not
bothering to READ the stuff in the group! The guy posted a link to some
redhat scurity thing. It was not the official redhat site. THe guy
demanded that I prove that all of the items could be fixed without
rebooting. At first I claimed that there were no kernel problems but
then I looked again and found one. BUY UNDERSTANDING HOW THE EXPLOIT
WORKS (something you have not shown any capacity for) I was able to
determine what was needed inorder to make a successful attack! Sendmail
needed to be installed, the user needed to have access to an shell, and
they needed either the ability to transfer files to the box or a
compiler needed to be installed. All those conditions needed to be met
before the exploit could be done. Just the kernel code vunerablility was
NOT enough! MANY other conditions needed to be met. If you do not
understand this, you do not understand how to secure a system.
> > again, you completely ignore the posibility that the exploit could
be
> > stopped by other means leaving the server secure without patching
the
> > kernel.
>
> No, I don't ignore it. Firewalls can stop the problem. But I doubt
many of
> those top 50 are attached to firewalls that do.
You do not know that!!!!! Pure speculation!!! you have claimed that
these sites are vunerable to being hacked because they were NOT patched!
But by your own admition here THEY DO NOT NEED TO BE PATCHED in all
cases to be secure. Other means can secure them so you have absolutely
no proof that any of the top 50 are vunureable to ANY known hack only
your opinion.
>
> > You have NOT shown that ANY of the record holders are vunerable to
ANY
> > attack that would crash the system or give the attacker access to
the
> > system!
>
> The only way to show that would be to attack them, and that would be
> illegal.
Nope, you can prove that a security hole exsists that can not be fixed
without a reboot, can be exploited remotely AND can not be stoped by any
other means.
But, if you did not know for sure why did you make claims that those
sites were vunurable to hacking based only on the fact that they have
been up for a long time>?????
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:34:31 GMT
In article <h4iP5.245349$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:z%gP5.18759$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:QeeP5.245274$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > It is not particularly difficult to find x86 equipment with hot
spare/hot
> > swap
> > raid drives or standalone boxes with a variety of interfaces with
that
> > capability. It is true that most PC hardware is built to be cheap,
but
> > you can still buy reliability if you want. Even with your
exponential
> > risk factor, a raid 5 array with a hot spare has to lose 3 drives
before
> > you get one replaced to take you down, and since you don't have to
> > shut down for the replacement that can be a pretty small time
window.
>
> Sure, and we're running RAID file servers and the whole shebang. But
we're
> dealing with statical probabilities here. We want to be able to
replace
> drives when they fail, but we don't want to wait until our drives fail
> before replacing them. Nor do we want to take chances with
motherboards,
> network interfaces, memory, and so on.
>
> > > Contrary to your assertion, we have found that hardware failures
> generally
> > > cause computer systems to stop. At that point, NT, DOS, Unix and
Linux
> are
> > > all equally reliable.
> >
> > But, if you have good filtered power you hardly ever lose anything
but
> > disk drives, power supplies, and maybe a modem if anyone still uses
> > them.
>
> Yes... and that's one reason why we perform scheduled maintenaince.
>
> Scheduled maintenaince isn't a bad thing. I don't know of any large
company
> that doesn't do it, regardless of what anyone thinks about Unix
reliability.
> If you were to look at our internal computer systems, you would find
that
> none of them have been up for longer than 6 months or so. But, again,
that
> has nothing to do with Unix (or any other OS) reliability. In the
majority
> of companies, uptime is not a good indicator of OS reliability.
The real question is: how much bang for you buck are you getting? In a
clustered invironment that can handle failures, it may not be cost
affective to do the type of scheduled maintance that you have suggested.
Please look though my posts for the full explination. I have worked in
several large financial institutions and I can tell you that some of the
nations bigist DO NOT DO any scheduled maintenance on there PC or UNIX
servers only their big iron
>
> -- Mike --
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:47:23 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > No, we develop a windows product and nearly everyone has had
> > some training. You can't make the 'ignorant user' argument here.
> > They are users with better things to do than memorize icons for
> > things that we do not use, though. I didn't spread it myself
> > because I don't use outlook at work, so leave my windows
> > experience out of it. The office in general is way above
> > average in what you could expect the users to know.
>
> You've a different defination of ignorant user than I do.
> You've stated that you do most of the development on linux and that your
> people are well versed in linux.
No, you are as far wrong about that as you have been about
everything else. I said the developers work on windows and
I do the linux stuff myself. Perhaps you were confused when I
said the CVS repository of their work resides on Linux. The
developers use wincvs or their native command line program
in client/server mode and don't know/care where the source
really is.
> If your people can't take the time to remember one silly icon, then you
need
> to get more people, yours are about to crack.
If you need to remember a silly icon for a product you don't use
something is seriously wrong.
> Knowing about *nix systems give you very little advantage when you come to
> use winodws.
> A lot of habits are different, ways of thinking are different.
> You can't take someone that knows his way in linux and tell me that he can
> handle windows to one tenth as good as he can handle a linux box.
You aren't paying attention. I'm telling you I have an office full of
as close to experts in windows as you are ever going to see in
one place (except for me) and they were fooled into unleashing
an emailed virus that did a serious amount of damage. Your
'ignorant user' argument just doesn't work and if you think the
world is going to change with training you are wrong. (I know I
didn't do it because I don't use Outlook there and always see the text
of the scripts when I get them).
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:52:23 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > Again, you don't have to know a "lot of commands" to use Linux.
>
> I don't want to refer to the man page every time I need to issue a
command,
> it slows productivity.
Slow? You must have it confused with the windows help system. It
isn't slow.
> How hard to understand is that?
> Therefor, I need to remember a lot of commands.
It doesn't hurt to remember them, but it isn't necessary on Linux. How
many versions and their variants can you remember at once, or do
you insist on only working on machines that you already know?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Cat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can you love a platform without being a bigot?
Date: 13 Nov 2000 02:00:40 -0600
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
>Can you love a platform without being a bigot?
All the people who can are in other newsgroups.
Cat
NEW THIS MONTH http://www.ratrobot.com/brainzilla/brainzilla.htm
What's the absolute limit of intelligence in this universe? And why
should I turn of the abflex2000 infomercials long enough to read out
it?
FREE AWARD WINNING APPLETS
http://www.ratrobot.com/java/ratrobot_help.jar CartoonPopUps 2.0
JARS EDITORS CHOICE. Put cartoon bubbles over your favourite image
link when the cursor is over them.
www.ratrobot.com Articles that challenge your ideas about yourself
and the world you live in.
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:NC8P5.102877$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uicl5$b7i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8ui682$mn8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy James Stapleton
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > : In the end the whole argument comes to this: People hate
> > > people who
> have
> > > : more. Why? Because if someone is more powerfull then they
> > > will have
> the
> > > : potential to control you. This stems from earlier times when
> > > such
> powers
> > > : were much more common. The solution? Destroy that which is
> > > most
> > powerfull by
> > > : supporting "underdogs". Eventually, and underdog becomes a
> > > top dog.
> Now
> > in 9
> > > : of 10 cases of this, I'll let you guess who the guns are
> > > pointing at
> at
> > that
> > > : point.
> > >
> > > While it is true that the jealousy can be *a* source of hate,
> > > it is a logical fallacy to say that anyone who hates is doing
> > > so out of jealousy. It's the classic fallacy:
> > > "all A's are B's, C is a B, therefore C is an A"
> >
> > "all A's are B's, C is a B, therefore A is an C"
> > Perfectly logical statement :)
> >
>
> Not exactly. Try substituting Apple for A, Fruit for B, and Cherry
> for C, and you'll be able to see your mistake more easily:
>
> All Apples (A) are Fruits (B);
> A Cherry (C) is a Fruit (B);
> Therefore, an Apple (A) is a Cherry (C).
>
> From the two premises (all A's are B's; C is a B), it is not
> possible to infer any relationship between A and C except that they
> are both members of the set B, which is not a conclusion at all, of
> course, since it is a direct restatement of the premises. In other
> words, no information can be deduced from the premises beyond what
> is already stated.
>
> Probably what you and the other Winvocate were trying to say was
> something like:
>
> All A's are B's;
> All B's are C's;
> Therefore, all A's are C's.
>
> But I can see how you've become accustomed to drawing invalid
> conclusions, what with having to come up with pro-Microsoft
> arguments and all. :)
>
> jwb
>
>
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOg8SPSh0Y2LcENUAEQJTJQCggBIpq05Mo4WBj0xPl7YRdJIB+/IAnR/E
7lXxtTpQ7Uu/s9FbAFSO31Gy
=ogMB
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
