Linux-Advocacy Digest #214, Volume #31 Wed, 3 Jan 01 10:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Hatred? (JM)
Re: Why Hatred? (JM)
Re: Why Hatred? (JM)
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge (JM)
Re: Strange passwd (Martin)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why Hatred? ("Darren Winsper")
Re: Uptimes ("JSPL")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ("MH")
Re: Uptimes ("JSPL")
Re: Microsoft is 20-years BEHIND other OS vendors ("MH")
Re: Uptimes (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (Bruce Scott TOK)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 13:57:00 +0200
begin post
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:58:56 +1200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Hi JM,
>
>> >> >How about "shithead" or "liar" or "Wintroll". Those are the REAL
>insults!
>>
>> >> Or "linsux" or "Penguinistas", or swangomoree's infamous 500 line
>> >> "Linux sux the big wazoo!".
>>
>> >I never use insults in my posts - until I've been insulted first, then
>> >they're fair game.
>> >
>> >Besides, I don't believe Linux sucks.
>>
>> I still can't get over that "Linux sux the big wazoo!".
>>
>> That really took the piss.
>
>Is this the "legendary" post:
>
>http://x54.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=649111565&CONTEXT=978479619.1591
>410708&hitnum=50
>
<snip>
> THE SECURITY IS GOOD BUT WHO THE FUCK NEEDS IT FOR A HOME PC.
>
> LINUX HAS A HELL OF A LONG WAY TO GO BEFORE IT BECOMES USEFUL TO THE
>EVERYDAY HOME /
> SMALL BUSINESS USER.
>
>---
>
>Frankly it doesn't appear that spectacular.
No, that wasn't it. The one I read was just "Linux sux the big wazoo!"
about 500 times.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 13:57:03 +0200
On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 04:55:48 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>mlw wrote:
>
>> Ok, you tell me. What reason would a windows user have to hate Linux? It
>> is not as if they are forced to use it. It isn't as if it is something
>> they even have to deal with.
>
>Why, because Linux is unix, which means editing configuration files with
>a text editor. Don't you know that you're supposed to have a GUI do
>everything for you?
>
>> So again, why would a Windows user even have an opinion about Linux?
>
>Because Linux is causing some Windows programmers and admins to lose
>their jobs. Bad, bad free operating system! Also, it takes more effort
>to type a command than to move a mouse and click. Scientists have
More effort? It's easier to just type a quick command than have to
move a mouse about trying to find an icon.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 13:57:04 +0200
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:03:00 +0000, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>JM wrote:
>> And they never said on EVERY system.
>It was implied. I was called a liar when I said my system stayed up for
>longer.
Implied? They never implied EVERY. Maybe MOST, but not every.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 13:57:07 +0200
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:51:12 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> > it shows 3589 matches. I then did a search for "linux" and that keyword
>> > recieved 510 matches. I also was in a Barnes & Noble not long ago and do
>not
>> > remember seeing nearly as many Linux related books compared to volume
>after
>> > volume, and sometimes multi volume SETS of books about Microsoft Windows
>and
>> > NT.
>> 510/3589 = 14%, which is a hell of a lot more than 0.3% or even 3%. Not
>> a bad ratio at all.
>That depends on your point of view. One could argue thats it's a very bad
>ratio. If it was more user friendly there would be a need for such a high
>ratio, especially since the OS exists on only .3% of the worlds computers.
Not really, it's just that on Linux there's more to learn. Most of the
Windows books I've read just tell you how to point-n-click your way
through some trivial chores, whereas things I've read about Linxu tell
you how the whole operating system works.
------------------------------
From: Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Strange passwd
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 21:49:05 +0800
Marble Head �g�J�G
> I agree with everyone else -- It's a terrible idea to eliminate passwords,
> in nearly all situations. However, if you really know what you're doing
> (which you probably don't, if you asked this question) then...
> Simply edit your /etc/passwd file (or /etc/shadow) and remove the jibberish
>
> that comes in between the first : and the second : characters.
>
Thanks for any comments on my question, actually I need to do so because I am
running a program that needs an linux user without password to access, and
this linux user will do things on the fly, password will terminate the
program process, and then I made this decision.
And I accept all you said that password is important, but not for all cases,
and I am sure I will no any problem to do so, and actually I KNOW WHAT I AM
DOING...
Finally, I solved the problem by myself, and I want to say is that please do
not try to GUESS somebody doing something is correct or not before you make
any comments.
Thanks anyway!
Martin.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 13:42:23 GMT
"Tim Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Of course. Many people have written IFS' including Veritas with their
> >Veritas File Storage system (or whatever it's called). Many digital
> >camera and removable storage device manufacturers write them all the
> >time. There was an Ext2 driver for NT 4.0 written. I have the site
> >written down somewhere if you're interested. The documentation (along
> >with one of the largest online computer-related documentation
> >collections) is all on MSDN Online (which is free). Check out the
> >library at msdn.microsoft.com.
>
> MSDN Online does not contain the NT or Win2K IFS Kit, which is what you
> need to write an IFS. The IFS Kit is $1000.
The Windows NT 4.0 DDK (freely downloadable) included the IFS kit.
This was a month or two ago when I downloaded it, at least.
Wonder why this changed? I still believe, I would have to check for
certain, though, that there is still enough documentation in the PSDK
and the 2000 DDK to build an IFS. The IFS kit just makes it easier.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 13:57:30 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 05:49:06
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> Without the filter of partisan posturing which you seem to have, it
> >> seems that the FL Supreme Court "understepped" its bounds, and this, in
> >> fact, is what the US Supreme Court pointed out. But your eagerness to
> >> say that the US Supreme Court "proved" it makes clear that you wouldn't
> >> be able to think straight about the matter to begin with, so even if I'm
> >> wrong, I doubt sincerely that you could ever even begin to approach
> >> convincing me of that.
> >
> >What the hell are you talking about? Even in the face of overwhelming
> >evidence, you still babble.
>
> WHAT "overwhelming evidence"? Guffaw.
>
> >Do you even listen to yourself?
>
> A surprising question coming from you.
>
> >The FL Supreme
> >Court was an example of liberal gerry-mandering in the process of elections.
>
> And what diety-on-high proclaimed this to you? Rush Limbaugh?
It was obvious to anyone that didn't have their head in the sand, like you.
>
> >Their decisions were purely partisan in nature and had no basis on the
> >facts.
>
> Yes, it always supports your case to insist that Supreme Court judges
> are "purely partisan" and have "no basis on the facts". Heaven forbid,
> you should wish to discuss an issue reasonably.
I am. Why do you not debate on merits of the facts, but rather pick
apart my words. Please tell us why the FL SC decisions were with merit,
even though the US SC vacated them twice?
>
> >In fact, in their first vacation of the FL Supreme Court, the U.S.
> >Supreme Court asked the FL SC to cite just ONE law on which they based
> >their decision. A request that the FL SC has yet to comply with.
>
> No, Supreme Court decisions do not contain phrases like that.
This is the official filing of the US SC in regards to the first
hearing on the first FL SC decision.
http://a388.g.akamai.net/f/388/21/1d/www.cnn.com//LAW/library/
documents/election.florida/00-836_dec04.pdf
NOTE: URL wrapped for readability, please reassemble on address line
Read the last couple paragraphs where they actually vacate the decision.
"After reviewing the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court, we find
"that there is considerable uncertainty as to the precise grounds for
the decision." Minnesota v Nationa Tea Co., 309 U.S. 551.555 (1940)."
"Specifically, we are unclear as to the extent to which the FL SC
saw the Florida Constitution as circumscribing the legislature's
authority under Art. II $1, cl. 2. We are also unclear as to the
consideration the FL SC accorded to 3 U.S.C. $5. The judgment of the
SC of Florida is therefore vacated"
Basically, that last paragraph said, "At what point did the the
legislature give the FL SC the power to write law? And why didn't
the FL SC pay attention to any of the other laws of the seperation
of powers?" The FL SC clearly overstepped its bounds without any
consideration for the Constitution or the US Code. The US SC put
its foot down.
> In fact, what the US Supreme Court said, and all they said, was that they were
> unaware of the judicial reasoning which lead to the FL Supreme Court's
> decision. A request they complied with several days later.
> Unfortunately, they were days the country could not afford, owing to the
> "rule of law" you Republicans love to misappropriate.
BS. There was no law governing the FL SC decision, in fact, there were
laws AGAINST such a decision, which is why the US SC was so eager to take
the case. The Rule of Law was subverted by the FL SC, and the US SC
stepped in to fix it.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 14:03:46 GMT
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > <sigh>
> > >
> > > Ask any self-respecting legal scholar or lawyer what they
> > > thought of the two FL Supreme Court rulings. If they say
> > > anything other than "Partisan" or "way off base", then they're
> > > not a self-respecting legal scholar or lawyer.
> >
> > Too bad Chad can't see this note, but notice the tangle.
> > Let's rephrase:
> >
> > Ask any X what they thought. If the answer is A,
> > then the X is not an X.
> >
> > This kind of illogic can keep a discussion going forever.
> > No matter what one says, if Chad does like it, he
> > can say you're not a good person.
> >
> > Chris
<Chris has a 3rd grade intellect and has proven it with his
"Nah nah nah boo boo" comments, so his comments will be
ignored>
>
> Well, I'm not a self-respecting legal scholar, neither I
> have one at hand (at least expert of American legal system),
> but a Supreme US Court ruling "Suspend manual recount until
> we've taken a decision", and a few days later ruling "Maybe
> manual recount would be appropriate, but unfortunately now
> it's too late" has made all Europe laugh heartily at the
> supposed impartiality of the US Supreme Court (with a
> majority of Republican members).
That's not at all what happened.
In the second US SC decision, the constitutionality of the
manual recounts after the Nov 14 deadline were called into
question. The US SC said that no further recounts should
happen because they are not constitutional in this respect.
One of the dissenting opinions might have said what you said,
but other than that, you are either grossly misinformed or
lying.
> So really I can't take seriously a situation where a state
> (whose governor is a Republican, and brother of a candidate)
> has carried out an election which challenges in precision
> and accuracy Bosnia and Kosovo elections, where a state
> Supreme Court with Democratic majority rules in favor of the
> Democratic candidate, and a Federal Supreme Court with
> Republican majority holds a decision until it's too late, to
> help the Republican candidate.
But it's ok when there are Democrat canvassers proven to be
completely partisan and fixing the election, a wholly liberal
Supreme Court who twice ignored the constitution and wrote their
own laws to support the Democrats, and many other Democrats
along the line who completely ignored the laws?
Yes, there was a Republican Governer, but that claim means nothing.
What did he do? Was there even any allegations of him involved
somehow in fixing the election for the Republicans? Of course not.
It's silly and childish to even bring up something like that without
any proof or even allegations of wrong doing.
As to the allegation that the "Republicans" in the US Supreme Court
waited too long, you are absolutely wrong. The US Supreme Court can
take months at times to deliberate over a tough decision. Just
to get a hearing with the US SC can take years in certain cases.
The fact that they took the case, heard it, and decided within
about a 2-3 day period is outstanding. If anything, they hurried
as fast as possible.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Darren Winsper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 14:18:53 +0000
In article <92tkqb$kfs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "WMH"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Microsoft browser is more compliant than the Netscape offering.
No it's not.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano)
ICQ #8899775 - AIM: Ikibawa - MSNIM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Certified 34% bastard, 19% of which is tard.
http://www.thespark.com/bastardtest
------------------------------
From: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 09:22:57 -0500
Reply-To: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92urpt$m8p$03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JSPL wrote:
>
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > Thanks for the decode, but according to Netcraft, they actually base
> > > their identification of OS on packet characteristics, not on the
> > > information provided by the web server.
> >
> > Come on, how stupid do you think people are? It's derived from the http
> > header not some secret "packet characteristic".
>
>
> well, do you know how nmap finds out about the operating system?
> It does it without HTTP headers, it solely relies on the characteristics
of
> the TCPIP-stack in question.
> And the developers clearly say that windows is espacially easy to discern
> because of the crappy TCPIP-stack, which does certain things different
from
> anybody else (setting the STANDARD, naturally)
>
In the first place, are you trying to say Netcraft is running nmap? Even
though OS and server is clearly displayed in the HTTP header, your trying to
assert that they still resort to some hacker method of OS fingerprinting,
which according to the souce can't even distinguish between Windows95, 98,
or NT because the TCP stack is so "shitty". That's real believable! Plus
where do they get the server type using nmap??...?
http://www.insecure.org/nmap/nmap-fingerprinting-article.html
I also ask again, where in the IP header is the OS and server type divulged
http://www.freesoft.org/CIE/RFC/791/12.htm
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 14:11:20 GMT
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bob Hauck wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 1 Jan 2001 13:37:16 -0500, JSPL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> On Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:28:58 GMT, Chad Myers
> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>
> > >> >> No, you claimed that the Democrats were trying to "subvert the rule of
> > >> >> law."
> > >> >
> > >> >Which they were. You didn't even answer the claims, instead stooping to
> > >> >name calling.
> >
> > >> Maybe I missed a civics lesson someplace where they defined lawsuits as
> > >> "subversion".
> > >
> > >Well lets see, a law on the books in Florida stated that the the Secretary
> > >of State SHALL certify the results by a certain date. The Florida Supreme
> > >court issued an order stating that the Secretary of State SHALL NOT certify
> > >by that date. I'd call that "subverting" the existing law, not
> > >"interpreting" it.
> >
> > I disagree, but for the purposes of this post lets say you're right.
> > Wouldn't it then be the Florida Supreme Court subverting the law rather
> > than the Democrats? Shouldn't you be up in arms about their actions
> > rather than those of the Democratic Party, who merely brought the suit
> > but did not make the ruling?
> >
>
> I'm not living in the US and I'm not very familiar with US
> Constitution. So I have a question:
> The Florida law book only says that the Secretary of State
> shall certify etc.?
The SoS oversees the election process, and then the State
Canvassing Board certifies the elections. The Canvassing board
consists of the SoS, The Governor, and another person (who
I can't remember at this time). The Governor recused himself
for obvious reasons and appointed the Secretary of Agriculture
in Florida to fill his position.
It is the SoS's responsibility to ensure that all votes tallies
are properly conducted, certified and signed by the local
canvassing boards, and submitted for official certification to
the State by the prescribed deadline. This deadline, the SoS's
powers, and the process have all been prescribed the by the
Legislature in accordance with Amendment 14 of the US Constitution.
> There aren't perchance a few other laws in that book?
Of course, but not governing this process.
> Because according the legal systems I'm used to, a ruling is
> usually made taking into account ALL the laws, not just one.
The same here. But there are only a few laws pertaining to the
election certification process.
> And if following the saying of one law, in one specific
> instance, is not in accordance with other laws, then a
> decision is taken which may be in contrast with that law,
> usually with reference with higher authority, like the
> Constitution.
> Is that carried out differently in Florida (or in the US)?
It was with the two decisions of the FL SC. The FL SC is
supposed to interpret existing laws and make decisions based
on those.
However, liberals in America like to make up rules as they go,
to suit their needs, so the liberal FL SC decided to just
wing it and make up laws and changed the already prescribed
election certification process ad hoc. This was in gross
violations of the Seperation of Powers, and of the laws
set forth in Amendment 14. See, back in the post-slavery
days, local governments would be constantly changing laws
to prevent Black people from voting. Amendment 14 prevented
laws from being written to exclude people, and it also
prevented laws from being changed AFTER the election to change
the result of the previously held election. This 2nd part
is EXACTLY what happened in Florida (by the FL Supreme Court)
and is why the US SC stepped in and vacated their decisions.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 09:36:40 -0500
"Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92uu2i$qei$01$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> >
> > What I find more interesting is that, per capita, there are probably an
> > order of magnitude more Linux books on the market than there is for
> > Windows. That is, more book titles per user.
> >
> >
> well, that is because linux users actually can READ. hHave you heard of
> this also? I think, that is something windows users don't do since 95,
> because they don't have to. Windows does it all, much easier, much
> better....
I love posts like this. It's a never ending parade!
Everyone hurls their stones without ever taking an inventory.
------------------------------
From: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 09:38:51 -0500
Reply-To: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92vart$i8r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:92t60g$cks$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > > The only thing I've seen are either an inability to display uptime
or
> > > > wildly impossible to believe number such as 13 or so pollings on a
> > server
> > > > showing time since last reboot to be "zero". (sauder.com). Or the
> > assinine
> > > > assumption that Netcraft is the only entity on earth that seems to
be
> > > aware
> > > > of all these popular sites going down every few days.
> > >
> > > www.walmart.com
> >
> > I wasn't aware IIs 5.0 had been ported to Linux. Sounds fishy to me :-)
>
> It wasn't.
> The server identify itself as IIS5, btw.
> But trying to go to http://www.walmart.com/thispagedoesnotexist.gsp
> The response isn't unlike *anything* that I've seen coming from IIS
> Not to mention that the file path is totally un-windows one.
>
> > They appear to be using a shopping program called cart.gsp and most web
> > pages use the extension .gsp. Anyone have any info on what that is?
>
> GSP stand for GNU Server Pages
> A Java servlet which storngly resemeble ASP
>
> http://www.bitmechanic.com/projects/gsp/
That pretty much answers my question! And proves that netcraft is wrong
(again).
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Microsoft is 20-years BEHIND other OS vendors
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 09:42:02 -0500
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> > Windows lacks things. Linux lacks things. And which lacks in more
> > (desktop) functionality? LINUX.
>
> Actually you are confused. You're probably thinking of apps.
I don't know about the other poster, but I'm thinking of everything.
> Windows has a huge head start in apps, 'tis true.
You state the obvious so well.
> But the cat is out of the bag, and a wave Linux apps is beginning.
Oh my, where have we heard this one before? And when?
Solution: Every year since the year after linux hit the net.
> However the look and feel of the desktop metaphor is one
> area where we must admit that windows is rather lame
> in comparison to modern Unix GUIs.
The only thing I'm prepared to admit, in response to your post, is that you
must be reading too much Slashdot propaganda. Getting caught up in that warm
and fuzzy Eric Raymond diatribe is a bit like bad acid.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:45:04 +0100
JSPL wrote:
> >
> In the first place, are you trying to say Netcraft is running nmap? Even
> though OS and server is clearly displayed in the HTTP header, your trying
> to assert that they still resort to some hacker method of OS
> fingerprinting, which according to the souce can't even distinguish
> between Windows95, 98,
I implied nothing of that sort, I did NOT say that they are running namp.
BUT, it was asked before how else just with the IP-Headers one could
discern between systems. nmap does it so well that it can discern between
several unix / linux systems. That it can not discern between 95 / 98 / NT
just tells something about MS, namely that they used patrs of the same
crappy code in all these. In addition, one finds 95 / 98 - systems by the
masses in the net (only, NOT as servers. THAT dumb aren't even microsoft
lovers)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: 3 Jan 2001 15:58:39 +0100
In article <92tmli$ojd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
hackerbabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html, referring to why
>Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
>
>"There is only one fundamental reason why great businessmen [like Bill
>Gates] or great companies [like Microsoft] are hated, and it has
>nothing to do with so-called monopolies. [Microsoft is] hated . . .
>because [it is] good, that is, smarter, more visionary, more creative,
>more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious, and more
>successful than everyone else.
>
>Haters of the good [competing OSes and browsers] do not want the less
>able to be raised up to the level of the great producers (which is
>impossible); they want the great producers to be brought down. They
>want to use government coercion to cripple the greatest minds so that
>lesser minds will not feel inferior."
This is exactly the way Scientology talks about critics... they are
jealous, bigots, etc.
This parallel gets more accurate every year, as MS increasingly puts
more and more desperate material on their website. You don't see them
talking like that in the trade press now do you. That is mostly stuff
for their own devotees.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
