Linux-Advocacy Digest #215, Volume #31 Wed, 3 Jan 01 11:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why Hatred? (Nick Condon)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? ("Mike")
Re: Why Hatred? (Nick Condon)
Re: Uptimes ("JSPL")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (hackerbabe)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it (Jure Sah)
Re: Uptimes ("tony roth")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (hackerbabe)
Re: Why Hatred? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (hackerbabe)
Re: mail reader (Adam Fineman)
Re: Uptimes ("JSPL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:08:49 GMT
In article <92vark$i8r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:92tcpa$fg4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <92t60a$cks$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > > This way, the config file itself is the one who stores all
> > > > > the options. If a new version, with new options, comes out,
> > > > > the same tool, with absolutely no modifications, be able to
> > > > > handle it.
> > > >
> > > > And probably screw it to death. Really.
> > >
> > > Not likely, not if both file & application are built correctly.
> > > Why would it screw it?
> >
> > Because although it knows the options change, it has no idea of
> > HOW they change. For example, if optionA is now deprecated, and
> > those who set optionA to valueA should now set optionB to valueB,
> > it won't know, and it will (in Gus Grissom's words) screw the
> > pooch.
>
> The program doesn't need to remember the settings, it read them from
> the file.
And the setting is still the old one.
> A new version will update the file, and should covert the old file
> format to the new format with more/less/updated options.
No program ever comes with config file updaters.
> The configurator isn't interested in the new/old/update file, all it
> does is read the options from the file and present the user with UI
> for them.
Then it will present the user with options for a version of the program
different from the one he has installed. That's even less useful.
> > Since you will have to validate the program against every revision
> > of every program it is supposed to configure (except the first
> > one, I guess), you just lost a big chunk of the savings.
>
> No, I don't think so, if they all use the same file format (or
> versions of it which the configurator support), then you don't need
> to test, just make sure that the files conform to the format.
The format is the same. The options are not.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:21:59 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Any script you can write in Unix can be written for Windows as well.
*SNORT*
[Damn, now I'm going have to clean coffee off my screen and keyboard]
That's good. That's really good. I think you have that sentence in your sig. I
think you should get a T shirt with it on. In fact I think I'll put it in my
sig.
--
"Any script you can write in Unix can be written for Windows as well" -- Erik
Funkenbusch
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:30:25 GMT
"hackerbabe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92tmli$ojd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html, referring to why
> Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
...
> Is there any truth to this accusation of envy, or are there other
> reasons people dislike Microsoft?
Of course there's truth to it. The question is, how much? As with any answer
that tries to distill a complex issue down to "one fundamental reason," the
amount of truth is likely not much. Most of the vitriol you read here,
taking the opposite position, is similarly limited.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:31:49 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> I'm not a VB programmer. I use Visual C++, Borland Delphi and C++ Builder.
> I know C and C++. As for programming for cross platform using C, why would I
> want to castrate my applications by going that!
Because you're working in a cross-platform environment? Or does your sig contain
terminological inexactitudes?
> Really? I thought that was true of the UNIX zealots, they don't want to let
> their UNIX evolve any further that the '70s.
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, Windows API is always changing as Microsoft
> introduce new stuff.
If you genuinely knew anything about programming, then you would realise that an
API that is "always changing" is a *bad* thing.
> --
> Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
Or is he?
------------------------------
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 10:38:40 -0500
Reply-To: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Perhaps these people were padding their time, trying to milk the job for
all
> > it was worth.
>
> Or maybe they were doing the very best they could do.
>
> > You make a claim that nobody else seems to be able to corroborate, and
then
> > refuse to back it up. That's not paranoia, that's plain common sense.
>
> No, that's a stubborn refusal to believe anything bad about windows.
>
> What will you do once I dig up that old study?
>
> > The only stats I know of about web server useage is Netcraft, and
Netcraft
> > doesn't count sites. It counts hostnames. My website has 5 hostnames
in
> > the global DNS and it's a single server. The numbers do not state what
you
> > think they do.
>
> What do you think the numbers state?
They state just what he said.
To put it another way - It's like trying to figure out the apple tree ratio
in an orchard by simply standing in the barn counting and sorting the
varieties that were picked.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:39:23 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 31 Dec 2000
>> >billh wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >>
>> >> > So says the man who claims that medics never get shot because they're
>> >> > protected by a magic force field....or something.
>> >>
>> >> Same force that made you a combat vet inside the Iraqi borders. LOL!!!
>> >
>> >See bill admit that he's a liar.
>>
>> I believe he was pointing out that you are a liar.
>
>He makes that *accusation* only by *admitting* that he himself is one.
Yea, right.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:39:26 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:44:18
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> They are responsible for cheapening computer hardware
>> in the form of Win products which are inferior to
>> regular products as they rely on YOUR CPU power to
>> power the peripheral!
>
>They do the same thing, right?
No, they do MUCH less.
>They cost *much* less.
No, they cost a *little* less.
>The customer can easily find out why the price differ so much.
No, they can't, despite your contentions. The vast majority of
consumers don't even know they have winmodems or winprinters, or
understand what that means, until they get burned trying to change OSes.
>So I can buy a cheap, fully functional hardware, or another on much higher
>cost.
>Why would I've to pay for the costly hardware?
Because its the only way you're getting your money's worth, and because
its the only way you can run a PC without getting locked into
substandard, overpriced monopoly crapware.
>> Microsoft is responsible for creating a mass slave
>> market of MSCE thru their licensing programs, a
>> program established so that Microsoft alone can
>> DEEM you UNFITT to hold a license and deny it
>> no matter how intelligent you are or how much
>> money you might have. If you don't have a license
>> then you are simply doomed to work in another field!
>
>False.
Exaggerated, yes, but clearly not false.
>They want you to pass their tests, so you've a minimal amount of information
>about the platform you are dealing with.
Better that they should publish the information then, instead of simply
certifying that you are allowed to have access to it, for a fee, as long
as you pass their tests on the maximal amount of pseudo-information
(seventeen ways to wave a dead chicken, the proper method of saying "You
should reboot and pretend it never happened; that'll fix it", why it is
not helpful for anyone to have access to source code, how to blame the
driver or the app, and why troubleshooting proprietary systems without
full documentation is easier when you've been certified in how to point
and click.)
>It's by no means different than other titles which companies grant.
I will grant you that one. Except all other companies grant
certification to *resellers*, mostly. Microsoft (and Cisco) are
probably the only ones who target the consumer base for this bogus ploy.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:39:28 GMT
Said J Sloan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 07:47:10 GMT;
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> Perhaps these people were padding their time, trying to milk the job for all
>> it was worth.
>
>Or maybe they were doing the very best they could do.
>
>> You make a claim that nobody else seems to be able to corroborate, and then
>> refuse to back it up. That's not paranoia, that's plain common sense.
>
>No, that's a stubborn refusal to believe anything bad about windows.
>
>What will you do once I dig up that old study?
I know, I know! He'll come up with an unending series of bogus excuses
why the statistics are flawed. After every one of them are proven to be
bogus through reason and evidence, he'll ignore it completely.
>> The only stats I know of about web server useage is Netcraft, and Netcraft
>> doesn't count sites. It counts hostnames. My website has 5 hostnames in
>> the global DNS and it's a single server. The numbers do not state what you
>> think they do.
>
>What do you think the numbers state?
Is this extra credit? ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:39:29 GMT
Said JSPL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 3 Jan 2001 01:50:27 -0500;
>"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".
Chances are you can do a bit of research on Netcraft's list, and you
could figure this out by examining those systems which identify an OS
different than what is "officially" identified as the 'web server'.
According to Netcraft (and, no, I do not think they are stupid, nor do I
have reason to believe they are lying) they don't use the http response
itself, but the packet characteristics of that response. This seems
reasonable, since the http headers are easily modified, while the packet
characteristics are not.
>The key IP header fields I know of are the souce ip address, destination IP
>address, datagram ID's, checksum, and a few others which in no way divulge
>the operating system and server.
I suspect they may use default fragment and window size, but that's just
a guess.
>Then there's this:
><quote>
> Netcraft determines the operating system of the queried host by looking in
>detail at the network characteristics of the HTTP reply received from the
>web site.
></quote>
>
>Now post a link to an RFC which defines where in a TCP packet that the
>operating system, and server is sent. I bet you can't, because the only
>place it exists in in the HTTP header.
You seem to be misreading the statement; it clearly says that they use
the "network characteristics", not the HTTP reply itself, to determine
the OS. It is obvious to everyone that there is no "field" for
identifying the OS in a TCP, or an IP, packet, so obviously they're not
just reading a discrete value which specifically names the OS, but
instead recognizing the "network characteristics", as they put it, of
each OS's built-in IP stack.
>> If I'm not mistaken, they ignore the OS identification provided by the
>> web server, and use the packet characteristics to ensure that the uptime
>> (which is used as a sequence number, not an "uptime" value, within the
>> TCP packet) they get matches the OS. This would explain why they might
>> "misidentify" a "server", but only in those cases they can't get uptime
>> to begin with; the packet characteristics don't reveal the OS, and so
>> even if the OS does use timeticks in the sequence number, Netcraft
>> couldn't be sure who they came from.
>
>Once again, show us all where on earth it says that a standard IP header
>field divulges the operating system. That's a complete waste of bytes, and
>flies in the face of logic.
If I knew that, I'd be competing with Netcraft. The only thing that's a
waste of bytes is your jibbering, and the only thing that flies in the
face of logic is your ignorant insistence that there would have to be a
field value containing the OS in order to determine the OS from the
network characteristics. Just because you don't understand something
doesn't make it impossible; your lack of knowledge does not cause
Netcraft's numbers to disappear in a puff of dust.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: hackerbabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:42:20 GMT
In article <92tn52$p38$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> What a bunch of horse pucky. From MS and from you.
I personally think it's good to know about the FUD that Microsoft says
about its competitors' products, in order to create a well-researched,
intelligent response.
Yes, I use Windows, but I really don't like it. I am currently in the
process of learning Linux with Mandrake 7.2. It's not as dumbed down
as Windows, but that's what makes it fun.
>
> In article <92tmm8$ojo$[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."
> > --------
> > Is there any truth to this accusation of envy, or are there other
> > reasons people dislike Microsoft?
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com
> > http://www.deja.com/
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Jure Sah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:42:12 +0100
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > ?????? Tell me of a OS that crashes on it's own!!!!!!!!!!! Moron...
>
> Windows. I've seen it crash more than once before even getting
> to the fucking LOGIN screen.
>
> Can't get any more "crashes on it's own" than that now, can you...
TIME is beyond your capacity of understanding? Did you have any software
runing before?
--
Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
reply.
For those interested in a theory of how to make AI:
HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/mind2.html (updated: 01.02.01)
457863656C656E742120596F75206465636F646564206D79207365637265
74206D6573736167652E20576F756C6420796F75206C696B6520746F2067
6574206120636F7079206F662074686520736F6674776172652049207573
656420746F20656E636F6465207468697320746578743F20446F6E277420
776F7272792C2049206D61646520697420616E6420492063616E20676976
6520697420746F20796F7520666F7220465245452E
GTSC4 -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)
HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/
------------------------------
From: "tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 07:54:47 -0800
then your a fucking idiot
"Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92peee$pbb$02$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> >
> > It is a fact that all OS's can be unstable in the right circumstances.
> > Period.
> >
> it is a fact (for me at least) that 2 different machines (each with 2
> processors, ECC-memory, all SCSI) just locked up on win NT4 while simply
> doing nothing at all (during the night), no screensaver, no nothing, just
> waiting there. One machine was trashed so badly, that it could NOT be
> rebooted again.
> That was the end of WinNT for me, I simply stopped using it. And i do not
> believe a single word of "win2k is better". Since years we are told "just
> wait for the next win-version, it will solve all these problems". Not only
> were all these problems not solved, we got ne ones in addition.
>
------------------------------
From: hackerbabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:46:02 GMT
In article <M8h_5.6642$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's supposed to be BOTH in this MODERN ERA of computing.
Why? Who says? And why should I let that person make my computing
decisions for me?
> The line between a UI and the OS are so blurred that they ARE
SUPPOSED to be
> one. It's just that instead of accomidating for the changes in
modern day
> computing, Linux has kept it's 30 year old mantra that "just stack
something
> above me" (in this case, the UI) actually works. It never worked.
Windows
> 95 can attest to that. So can MacOS, so can Solaris.
That's funny. I know a Lockheed Martin computer systems analyst who
still uses Windows 95. He says that he prefers that OS to Win98
because it gives Microsoft less control over his computer.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:47:32 GMT
In article <pah46.7736$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip a lot]
> > and then what were you saying? "There's no commercial
> > databases for Linux, so Linux will never make it" - but as
> > you know, Linux now runs all major commercial databases.
>
> Ahh.. like SQL Server, Informix, Ingres... right?
SQL Server is not a product name, it's a description. Or you mean MS
SQL Server? No, that one doesn't work.
But if Informix is good enough for youy, it does indeed run on Linux.
As does Oracle, Sybase, and half a dozen others.
[snip more]
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: hackerbabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:51:32 GMT
> Linux doesn't have the 'good' value anymore. Just saying "it's more
stable"
> isn't working (and RedHat software's stock will attest to that.)
Microsoft's stock has been dropping also, like many companies in the
tech industry. Does that mean it's not a good value anymore, either?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Adam Fineman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: mail reader
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 11:12:56 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Adam Fineman wrote:
>
> > I'm looking for a mail reader that can handle multiple accounts (mixed
> > IMAP & POP). Netscape, e.g., can only handle multiple accounts if they
> > are all IMAP.
>
> KMail of KDE2 works pretty well. It handles my two EMail accounts with ease.
>
> --
> Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
KMail, AFAIK, does not support IMAP.
Thanks, everyone, for the responses. It looks like my best bet will be to use
fetchmail. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I can best divide the
incoming mail into separate folders based upon which of my accounts to which
the mail was originally sent? I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear what
people generally do rather than reinvent the wheel.
-- Adam
------------------------------
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 11:08:48 -0500
Reply-To: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JSPL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 3 Jan 2001 01:50:27 -0500;
> >"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".
>
> Chances are you can do a bit of research on Netcraft's list, and you
> could figure this out by examining those systems which identify an OS
> different than what is "officially" identified as the 'web server'.
> According to Netcraft (and, no, I do not think they are stupid, nor do I
> have reason to believe they are lying) they don't use the http response
> itself, but the packet characteristics of that response. This seems
> reasonable, since the http headers are easily modified, while the packet
> characteristics are not.
>
> >The key IP header fields I know of are the souce ip address, destination
IP
> >address, datagram ID's, checksum, and a few others which in no way
divulge
> >the operating system and server.
>
> I suspect they may use default fragment and window size, but that's just
> a guess.
No, packet size is easily altered but I believe the default size is 576
octets for most machines. No one would rely on packet size to derive the OS,
AND packet size can be changed anywhere in the route from server to client.
But I thought it was the timestamp? Hasn't all the pro-netcraft crowd been
trumpeting the timestamp the system places on packets as the OS identifier??
Even though according to RFC 791 the timestamp for a packets is milliseconds
since midnight UT.
http://www.freesoft.org/CIE/RFC/791/12.htm
>
> >Then there's this:
> ><quote>
> > Netcraft determines the operating system of the queried host by looking
in
> >detail at the network characteristics of the HTTP reply received from the
> >web site.
> ></quote>
> >
> >Now post a link to an RFC which defines where in a TCP packet that the
> >operating system, and server is sent. I bet you can't, because the only
> >place it exists in in the HTTP header.
>
> You seem to be misreading the statement; it clearly says that they use
> the "network characteristics", not the HTTP reply itself, to determine
> the OS. It is obvious to everyone that there is no "field" for
> identifying the OS in a TCP, or an IP, packet, so obviously they're not
> just reading a discrete value which specifically names the OS, but
> instead recognizing the "network characteristics", as they put it, of
> each OS's built-in IP stack.
Considering that the IP stack is the same for Win95 Win98 and WinNT how do
you propose they can distinguish these seperate OS's in their reporting? God
forbid, it wouldn't be because the HTTP headers sent by these OS's clearly
indicate the distinction would it? That would be too easy. They surely
wouldn't read the HTTP header when they could use some unsupported hacking
technique that might, but probably won't reveal accurate information.
Face it, once again your proven wrong, Netcraft derives the OS and server
from the HTTP header. Not the IP header.
> >Once again, show us all where on earth it says that a standard IP header
> >field divulges the operating system. That's a complete waste of bytes,
and
> >flies in the face of logic.
>
> If I knew that, I'd be competing with Netcraft. The only thing that's a
> waste of bytes is your jibbering, and the only thing that flies in the
> face of logic is your ignorant insistence that there would have to be a
> field value containing the OS in order to determine the OS from the
> network characteristics. Just because you don't understand something
> doesn't make it impossible; your lack of knowledge does not cause
> Netcraft's numbers to disappear in a puff of dust.
It appears to me that YOU don't understand it. But (maybe) you eventually
will as you study the issue.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
