Linux-Advocacy Digest #225, Volume #31 Wed, 3 Jan 01 21:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows Stability ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Conclusion ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux Modems ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
mail server with virtual ip? ("ID")
Why NT? (mlw)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com (Chris
Ahlstrom)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it (Chris
Ahlstrom)
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com (Chris
Ahlstrom)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: 4 Jan 2001 01:21:50 GMT
Boris Dynin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
8<SNIP>8
: Agreed. My home system: P200 with 96MB RAM - runs W2k Pro. It's not speed
: demon, but it's quite usable. I even use it when I work at home: run
: MS-Office, Visual Studio, etc. Compared to system I use at work: PIII-600
: with 256 MB RAM (W2k server) - it's considerably slower on some operations;
: but the speed is comparable on other ops.
Yeah, but can you run it off of a floppy?! No? Then it must suck.
</SARCASM>
:-D
--
.-----.
|[ ] | Stephen Edwards | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "I'm too polite to use that word, so I'll just say,
| | 'bite me, you baboon-faced ass-scratcher.'"
|_..._| --SEGA's Seaman on the "F" word.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:04:38 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9306lc$5sc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:42:16
> > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 2 Jan 2001
> 20:15:50
> > >> [...]
> > >> >> >Found another one.
> > >> >> >www.walmart.com
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Another one WHAT, Ayende?
> > >> >
> > >> >Check this one in netcraft.
> > >>
> > >> Why?
> > >
> > >Adam Ruth asked about sites which displayed unbelivable resutls.
> > >I gave two so far.
> > >
> > >Netware + IIS
> > >Linux + IIS
> >
> > Adam Ruth asked for sites which displayed inaccurate uptimes, and has
> > pointedly, specifically, and repeatedly mentioned that 'unbelievable
> > results' are not at all interesting in this regard.
> >
> > Perhaps some web designers somewhere have discovered that there are
> > certain Microsoft software products which do not behave correctly unless
> > the server identifies itself as "IIS" in the HTTP header strings. I
> > think this is an ominous possibility, for what I hope would be obvious
> > reasons.
>
> You do realize that <non windows>+IIS is the *only* thing we can identify as
> wrong, do you?
> And I'm not aware of a single reason that would require you to fake your
> server.
> Aside perhaps to hide your true server, which might offer some (very little)
> protection from hackers.
T. Max is just waxing moronic again. This just proves, again, that Netcraft
has no accurate way of determining what is just a firewall/loadbalancer/server-
side-cache and what is actually a web server. The uptimes reported could be
from any machine in the chain.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Modems
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:05:28 GMT
In article <92vj6o$8c8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm curently a new linux user and I'm using Mandrake 7.2
> Can anyone suggest to me an easy to configure external modem that I
can
> find at CompUSA or Best buy? All insight is appreciated.
Is your requirement for an external modem because you're short on
internal slots or is it because you're just trying real hard to avoid
getting sucked into the Winmodem tragicomedy?
Not all internal PCI modems are Winmodems. I'm using an ActionTec 56k
PCI internal call-waiting modem with Caldera 2.4. No problems
whatsoever. Better yet, it's one of the few supported by Keller Group's
PMfax Professional for Linux. Piece of cake to setup, and available
everywhere. I got mine at Hasting's Books, and I've seen it all over.
Last time I saw one on the shelf it was discounted down to about $50US,
cheaper than any external I know of.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:11:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> You fucking dumbass. MS did NOT appeal the verdict.
> They appealed the SENTANCE.
>
> They're guilty as sin, and they know it.
> They're just pissed that the judge handed down punishment which
> will actually put a stop the the criminal activity.
>
> > MS did not break the law.
>
> That strange...by failing to appeal the finding of guilt,
> MS's lawyers admit that, in fact, MS DID BREAK THE LAW.
> ( 60 counts, no less!)
Thanks for pointing that out. Again. The fact that MSFT apologists seem
to be completely unaware of this just totally bumfuzzles my brain.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
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: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:08:09 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 13:57:30
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> >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.
>
> Oh really? Liberal gerry-mandering? I hadn't heard that, and I got
> daily updates on the issue because I happen to be traveling at the time,
> and I like to watch the Today show and read the paper when I'm
> traveling.
What do you call the otherwise inexplicable constitutional law-breaking
that the FL SC committed? You can call it whatever you want, but an
accurate description would be liberal gerry-mandering.
>
> >> >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.
>
> Because, as little merit as your words might have, your "facts" have
> even less.
Max, I have thus far backed up every single claim I've made, and you
continue to bash me, but provide not a SINGLE ounce of fact, evidence,
or reasonable logic to refute me.
I have won this debate several times over, yet you continue to post
with NOTHING to substaniate ANY of your claims.
>
> >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
>
> Just an aside; urls aren't for reading, they're for clicking. Next
> time, either admit that its wrapped because your newsreader is broken,
> or don't bother changing it.
My newsreader is set to wrap at 80 columns because of brain-dead Unix
users who refused to get into the 1980s and get a decent OS that doesn't
have a 80-column width restriction.
-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: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:10:00 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 14:11:20
> [...]
> >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.
>
> Honestly, you can't see how this kind of flagrant partisan poppycock
> undermines your position?
T. Max Devlin Dictionary for the Mentally Inept:
"Partisan Poppycock" n. syn. see "truth" 1.) To provide accurate,
fact based, and substantive arguments.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:40:11 GMT
Said chrisv in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:10:22 GMT;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Once again, having no case, you do not post *SPECIFICS*!
>>
>>That's because its a conversation, moron, not an official court case.
>
>You lost the argument, buddy. Badly.
If this were the entirety of the argument, I would support your 'case'.
--
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.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:40:19 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001
[...]
>The law specifying that the Sec. of State shal certify the election
>in 7 days is *NOT* in conflict with any other law, nor with the
>Florida Constitution nor the US Constitution.
Stated as an absolute, after-the-fact declaration, this is false. The
law was in conflict with several other laws, including, I believe, that
old liberal stand-by, civil rights law, as well as the law guaranteeing
equal protection, according to the discussion of the Supreme Court. The
plaintiff's may well have held (none of us really have much detail on
the specifics of the court cases, just the reporting of the cases) that
there was a conflict. Insisting that there was not a conflict, so the
plaintiff's shouldn't have brought the case, in retrospect, is blatantly
performing just as those who criticize the Republicans claim: wrapping
yourselves in the flag and insisting your rhetoric comes from a position
of moral superiority.
Regardless of how firmly grounded you think your claim to moral
superiority may be, its strength is the inverse of the volume with which
you proclaim it, and the certainty with which you hold that belief.
--
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.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:40:25 GMT
Said chrisv in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:51:57 GMT;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>I hope all of you have seen how I have finally won this argument.
>>
>>Guffaw.
>
>Typical reponse from you on this issue, I see. Nice debating skills.
Guffaw.
>>>My
>>>two only opponents (Chris and Max) have descended into infantile
>>>name-calling because they refuse to debate on facts and merit.
>>
>>Congratulations, you're a troll.
>
>You lost the arguement, and badly.
I'm afraid you are rather sadly mistaken. But I'm willing to bet money
that you're a Republican, eh?
--
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.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:40:33 GMT
Said chrisv in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:52:52 GMT;
>Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Actually, I think we're tired of waiting for you to produce
>>facts and argue with merit (logic). "Arguing" about facts with you is
>>like arguing about race relations with a Nazi.
>
>Another fact-free post from the left-wing cheaters.
So we'll just lump you in with Erik, Aaron, and Chad, as one of those
people who really does not get it.
Since you seem to have just popped up, and may be young enough not to be
able to spot a troll, or just naive enough drop into lock-step with the
Republicans, but might otherwise be a sensible person, I'll give you a
bit of an explanation. Feel free to ask questions, OK?
When you respond to a statement like the one above, claiming it is "fact
free", that's about on a level with what Chris Ahlstrom meant about it
being "like arguing about race relations with a Nazi" in terms of the
level of intellectual capabilities involved. But that's neither here
nor there; it might very well just make you a stupid person. But to
really be brain-dead, and take your place amongst the most soft-headed
trolls, you have to go beyond it.
Which you handily did, by using the phrase 'left-wing cheaters'. This
more or less seals the deal, as far as any chance you would be able to
carry on a reasonable discussion on any real issues with anyone who does
not conform to your political beliefs. You might as well have called
Chris Ahlstrom Hitler. It is not your intellectual capabilities, but
your intellectual integrity, which is now questionable, in the eyes of
any who might have thought you had a clue.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:40:40 GMT
Said chrisv in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:53:53 GMT;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>The truth is, the Democrats bended the laws far beyond reasonable tolerance
>>>and the Surpeme Court had no recourse but to set it straight again.
>>
>>What utter tripe.
>
>No, what well-known fact. Sheesh.
This is what people learn these days, huh? Bunch of soft-headed
ignoramuses. The Supreme Court Decided, and that means the Democrats
were wrong, huh? Get the fuck out of my newsgroup.
--
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.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:40:48 GMT
Said chrisv in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:57:13 GMT;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>"Democrats were doing their best, at every turn, to break, manipulate,
>>and work around the law"
>
>Sounds like a good summary of what was happening in Florida.
Another troll heard from. Look, buddy; if you want to join in on the
discussion, how about you review the last few days exchanges, consider
your opinion seriously, maybe do some research, come up with a decent
presentation, and then respond to our *positions* in a cogent and
reasonable reply to one of the summary comments that someone has posted.
Don't just fucking "snip and snipe" in response to each post of someone
you clearly disagree with. It gives the impression you don't have the
intellectual integrity or the balls to engage in reasonable debate.
--
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: "ID" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: mail server with virtual ip?
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 09:38:48 +0800
hello all,
i have a rh7 linux box with - name server, web servers, and mail server on
it.
but i wat to move the mail server to a seperate machine (it'll be sure a
linux box too).
but have a small problem., i don't have an extra real ip anymore..(used-up
all)
since the the both machine (name server and mail server) will be part of
same network(LAN) is it possible to use virtual ip for mail server? if so,
how?
i appreciate any help.
ID.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why NT?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 20:54:49 -0500
With operating systems as great as Linux and FreeBSD available for free,
why would anyone consider Windows NT Server?
I can't think of a single reason why any responsible IT department would
deploy NT.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:52:28 GMT
Said tony roth in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 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.
Thanks for stopping by, Tony. Guffaw.
--
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: Chris Ahlstrom <[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
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:53:27 GMT
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> :> 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. Not even close.
>
> They're slower, of much lower quality overall, and relegate almost all
> the actual work to the machine's CPU, costing you time and therefore
> money.
Worst of all, they *lock* you into Microsoft.
I wonder where the idea for WinModems came? Which company
made the first WinModem?
Same for those win-printers. I wonder if that one was
HP's doing. Damned 820Cse DeskJet!
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:54:53 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> Hell, the last time I've seen BSOD was when I was running the funny
> screensaver.
You take good care of your system!
--
Patiently awaiting the denouement of the Howie Long and
Terry Hatcher saga.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:57:00 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > 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.
> They want you to pass their tests, so you've a minimal amount of information
> about the platform you are dealing with.
> It's by no means different than other titles which companies grant.
In other words, another source of income, and another product lock-in.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 02:05:38 GMT
Said JSPL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:08:48 -0500;
>"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
I'm afraid you are *really* lost. Netcraft's results are certainly in
keeping with the tiny shreds of reality you have in there. Yes, default
packet size can be altered; this would explain cases where Netcraft
reports on the web server from the http headers, but can't identify the
OS. The default size is 576 octets for "most machines", because most
machines are Microsoft's TCP/IP stack. That may very well be one of the
signatures they use. Yes, packet size, and a number of other
attributes, the specifics of which I'm not aware of but not willing to
entertain arguments from ignorance concerning, can be used to derive the
OS. There are probably many more than you can imagine, given that we're
dealing with a TCP packet inside an IP packet, both of which and the
combination can prove revealing. No, packet size, nor any of these
other mechanisms, can be changed 'in the route', though obviously
firewalls do, we know, cause loss of information when they change things
at the originating site. The "timestamp" isn't used as a timestamp, in
TCP/IP. Instead, most stacks, in needing an arbitrary but unique value,
use a timeticks counter, which can be used as a continuity indicator to
provide uptime statistics. Nobody that I know of has mentioned any use
of this counter, or any timestamps at all, in the packet or otherwise,
as an OS identifier. It is possible, of course, that how different
TCP/IP stacks implement RFC791 is used as a signature in some way.
[...]
>> 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?
I'm not entirely sure they do; perhaps they just use the http string to
arbitrate. It is known that the TCP/IP stack is substantially unchanged
between the two codebases.
>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.
What's more, it would be ambiguous. These strings can be set by the
server; Netcraft uses network characteristics to determine the OS. If
the characteristics are identical between the two (something you haven't
demonstrated, though it seems reasonable to suppose they differ in some
conspicuous detail) then of course they may use the HTTP strings.
You're the only one being brain-dead and unreasonable here.
>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.
If the strings say its NT, but the network characteristics say its
unknown or, say, Linux, you expect them to go with the strings?
>Face it, once again your proven wrong, Netcraft derives the OS and server
>from the HTTP header. Not the IP header.
I honestly understood the points you were raising, though I think you
should agree that I have laid them to rest. But I have no idea why you
think this conclusion could be drawn from them, even if they were true.
>> >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.
Guffaw.
--
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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
