Linux-Advocacy Digest #556, Volume #31 Thu, 18 Jan 01 18:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: More Linux woes ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Ed is the standard editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MSG. to all about the loser kid trolls with nothing better to do... (Frank. N.
Puppenstein)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("WMH")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Bones)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Salvador Peralta)
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! (Mig)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why Hatred? (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:06:10 +0200
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd) wrote in
> <9435gs$bkm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >
> >"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Todd wrote:
> >>
> >> > Linux *is* too hard to use - Linux will *never* replace Windows on
the
> >> > desktop if Linux users have this attitude.
> >>
> >> The desktop is dying, anyway. The future is embedded, where Linux
> >dominates
> >> already.
> >
> >Funny... I've heard this comment for years now...
> >
> >Last couple of years it was Java replacing Windows...
>
> That would be difficult, since Java is language and Windows is an OS.
>
> What you're thinking of is the promise that Java would break Microsoft's
> grip on the desktop. That hasn't happened for a number of reasons, some of
> them due to Microsoft, some of them due to Sun.
>
> But don't write Java off just yet. It is quietly gaining support on the
> server side (where the real multiplatform pay off is) and is already the
> number most popular language after C/C++.
I would take C/C++ any time except on server side websites (C/C++ is *not*
good at strings, and that is what those servers side thingies usually do.),
not as portable, but much better.
Admittedly, I know a hell of a lot more C/C++ than Java.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ed is the standard editor
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:29:44 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Marc L. Cohen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>And considering that when I first used ed, the standard interface was a
>Teletype terminal, not only powerful, but efficient.
An ASR-33 ? No carpal tunnel with *that* baby ! wham ! wham ! wham !
on each key, slow and deliberate, and watch the cheesy yellow paper to
make sure you hit each one hard enough. Mistake ? Uh-oh, backspace,
backspace, wham ! null character, holes across all eight rows ... at least
it wasn't a Flexowriter. All these modern pansy editors that make correcting
so easy ... (remember going to school in the snow with barbed wire
wrapped around your bare feet for traction ? :-)
--
h�rad �ngravv�d
------------------------------
From: Frank. N. Puppenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MSG. to all about the loser kid trolls with nothing better to do...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:30:31 -0800
J5 wrote:
> It seems there are an a bunch of kids either in high school or their
> first year of collage with nothing better than to bash Linux.
>
> These losers probably aren't even Comp. Sci. majors, they are too
> stupid for that (so many holes in their pathetic arguments, etc), I
> bet they are business majors, yes, that's it.
>
> Lame Ducks, the two easiest degrees to get, world wide, are business
> and communication, at least with communications you are in class with
> some hot women. Business degrees are a joke, MBA from Yale, different
> story, but your common business major is an idiot.
>
>
> J5
Physics degrees rule !
--
"Poof. You're a puppeteer."
------------------------------
From: "WMH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:38:46 -0500
No, not really. This is what self proclaimed Unix administrators do.
(when they're not burning porn to CD)
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:r5a96.88700$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > I have a script that runs xmoon, refreshing every 120 seconds,
> > and then 60 seconds later, runs xearth, refreshing every 120 seconds.
> >
> >
> > making a dynamic desktop :-)
>
> This sounds a tad obsessive to me.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:51:52 GMT
>> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Did I read this correctly?
>> Win2K: MTTF 2893 Hours? (120 days)
>> NT: MTTF 919 Hours? (38 Days)
>> Win98: MTTF 216 Hours (9 days)
[snipped: The Register's article]
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> The test covers desktop environments, not servers. The average desktop *IS*
> shutdown at night.
Yes. So, logically, extended hours of service would result in shorter time
periods between "failures".
>> Well, there you have it, plain and simple. A study, funded by Microsoft,
>> that proves that while 2K is better than NT, it still sucks.
> The way they count failure is "unplanned reboot". Also note that they used
> beta versions of 2000 for the study (they also used the released version,
> but beta's were also used).
Where was this information? I looked at NSTL's report summary page, and
noted that this information was gathered in both private companies and their
own labs. It would also be interesting to find out what kind of hardware was
being used, and what applications were being run.
Also, someone at MS must be pretty dense to accept a study for publishing
knowing full well that power outtages could have been counted against
Window's reliability.
> The interesting thing about the study is that the number of hours monitored
> for NT were a little over 1/3 of the number of hours monitored for 2000, and
> the number of hours monitored for 98 were a little more than 20% of those of
> 2000.
I have to say, I'm no fan of NT at all, but an estimate of 38 days of uptime
at constant use is a little ridiculous. If my NT boxes were failing every
month, I would be looking for another career. (they aren't by the way)
[snip]
>> ...and Win98 will crash within 9 days. There is also a likelihood that it
>> will be much sooner.
> or much longer.
Doubtful. I am lucky to get a Win98 workstation to run crash-free for six
hours straight. The ones I manage are under constant heavy use though.
[trim]
>> The MS-Zealots claim that their NT/2K systems have longer uptimes, but
>> they are either being dishonest or they are not the norm.
> And what's the MTTF of Linux? Empirical studies, not anectdotes about
> single systems.
So far, in my five years working with Linux, and the 3 servers I am running
now at work, I have had a single crash (definitely caused by me). This
covers a variety of hardware from 386s to PIIIs with high-end SCSI. One
server I admin has been running for a year, the other two for six months,
and no crashes. There have been at least a half-dozen power-outtages
however.
What was the study that was published about Linux reliability? Who did that,
ZDnet?
>> Microsoft has funded this study and used the results in an advertisement
>> campaign.
I can't believe MS is going to run a full page ad with these test numbers,
they are awful! This may be the worst marketing decision they have ever
made. I can see that they want to boost Win2k sales, but they really
shouldn't have used reliability as the crux of their argument. In effect,
they are telling every one of their previous customers that what they have
purchased is defective. Is this part of a settlement with the DoJ?
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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, 18 Jan 2001 22:51:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Chad Myers once wrote:
> >>
> >>- MS has one of the best security response time to discovered exploits.
> >> Even better than Red Hat in most cases. And MS even tests their patches
> >> and then does a full regression test each Service Pack, something
> >> Red Hat doesn't do.
>
> I've posted this before but I think Mr. Myers needs to see it again.
Myers will say anything.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:51:49 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said LShaping in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:01:04 GMT;
> >"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >>> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16139.html
> >
> >>> Did I read this correctly?
> >>> Win2K: MTTF 2893 Hours? (120 days)
> >>> NT: MTTF 919 Hours? (38 Days)
> >>> Win98: MTTF 216 Hours (9 days)
> >
> >I can't imagine trying to run Win98 for 216 hours straight. That sort
> >of test must rely on doing the same simple tasks repeatedly.
>
> I agree; these numbers are obviously wildly idealistic. But that is
> what "mean time to failure" numbers are. They are meant to measure the
> chance of failure, not the regularity of failure. They are
> statistically difficult to deal with, except as a direct comparison with
> complete substitute. I honestly don't think they should be applied to
> anything but hardware, either.
>
> >>> BTW That 72 weeks assumes you turn off the computer when you go home,
> >>> and only work 40 hours a week. Bogus. It is really only about 18 weeks
> >>> of constant uptime (closer to 17).
> >
> >>The test covers desktop environments, not servers. The average desktop *IS*
> >>shutdown at night.
>
> Only because if you don't shut down Windows systems every night, they
> crash. Doh.
>
> >Mean time between failure is usually calculated by continuous
> >operation.
>
> Mean time between failures is *always* calculated based on continuous
> operation. Or, rather, it doesn't theoretically matter whether it is
> operating or not, and so it is assumed it can be. Another reason why
> MTTF metrics for software are just too stupid to contemplate. It is
> rather laughable that Microsoft has to use the calculated chance of
> hitting a bug, with non-random input in an ideal environment, in order
> to pretend their software is reliable.
>
> >>> Just so people know, MTTF is the "mean time to failure" which means that
> >>> given any Win2K system, there is a good chance it will crash within 120
> >>> days, and that NT will crash within 38 days, and Win98 will crash within
> >>> 9 days. There is also a likelihood that it will be much sooner.
> >
> >>or much longer.
> >
> >My experience with Windows 98 says that it would be much shorter than
> >216 hours. I am quite happy when Windows 98 runs for 48 hours without
> >having to reboot.
>
> I am quite unhappy when NT SP4 has to be rebooted after 48 hours, which
> happens to me a lot. But I use 'suspend' mode occasionally at night (to
> shut the fan down), and NT can't really handle suspend mode correctly at
> all. Neither could WinDOS, for that matter. So I'll admit mine is not
> a "fair" test. As if I'm at all interested in being fair to monopoly
> crapware.
>
> >But by that time, something internal usually is
> >messed up, which prevents properly shutting down. And then on the
> >reboot, that idiotic scandisk screen comes up blaming me for
> >improperly shutting down Windows. My experience with Windows 98
> >includes about fifty different configurations and thousands of hours
> >of use.
>
> It is kind of amazing how much that annoying little trait frustrates so
> many people, and so well epitomizes the dawning recognition that maybe
> there's something to this "monopoly crapware" stuff, after all.
>
> Of course, we have yet to see the MTTF for Linux, or any other Unix,
> AFAIK. You don't measure MTTF for *software*, for christ's sake! It
> doesn't wear out; if its functioning now, it should continue functioning
> practically forever. This, I think, is an illustration of the fact that
> Microsoftheads don't understand at all what "reliable" means, when it
> comes to software.
>
You're right that MTTF tested that way wouldn't make sense for anything
else except MS crapware. However it's interesting to note that even the
most benevolent testers lead to the conclusion that Win2k is perhaps a
little better than its predecessors, but still quite crappy!
What makes much more sense, IMO, is the crashme test conducted applying
random valid input to MS (and non MS) applications under Windows NT and
Windows 2k:
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~bart/fuzz/fuzz-nt.html
it turns out that under Win NT 45.4% of the applications either crashed
or hanged, this percentage raising to 64.3% under Win 2k.
Another interesting point in this article is the test performed sending
random Win32 messages to the applications:
"The tests that produced the greatest failure rates are the random Win32
message tests. In the normal course of events, these messages are
produced by the kernel and sent to an application program. It is
unlikely (though not impossible) that the kernel would send messages
with invalid values. Still, these tests are interesting for two reasons.
First, they demonstrate the vulnerability of this interface. Any
application program can send messages to any other application program.
There is nothing in the Win32 interface that provides any type of
protection. Modern operation systems should provide more durable
firewalls."
This judgment comes from such a benevolent tester to assert that results
for Unix (in 1995) are "similar", when actual paper
ftp://grilled.cs.wisc.edu/technical_papers/fuzz-revisited.pdf
shows a more complex and interesting situation. Where, by the way it
turns out that GNU utilities with 6% failure rate range at first place,
followed by Linux at 9%, and commercial UNIX's (Sun, IBM, SG1, DEC and
NEXT) range from 15 to 43%.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:55:49 +0000
sfcybear wrote:
> Oh, look. Pete shows, again, that when it comes to computers he does not
> know what he is talking about. The first sentance of the artical say
> that this is a worm, not a virus. It also only affects the Redhat
> version of Linux. It would not be able to use the same methods on
> Mandrake if it were installed with security level set at "high". Thus it
> is a Redhat issue and not a Linux issue.
A worm, a virus, either way damage is down to a system.
BTW, can you spell "article"?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:55:26 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:ke9649.u2d.ln@gd2zzx...
> > From the January 17 SANS NewsBites:
> >
> > --11 January 2001 NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
> > A survey posted on Attrition.org ranks Windows NT as the most vulnerable
> > to crackers, garnering nearly 60% of December defacements. Microsoft
> > may be targeted because it is so widely known, or because it has a
> > reputation for hurrying the release of applications, which suggests that
> > security might take a back seat.
> > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1007-200-4449902.html
>
> Kind of ironic, consider the RameN crew worm that's loose on Red Hat Linux
> 6.2 and 7.0 machines throughout the internet.
>
> In any event, all it takes is one vulnerability and you can make the top of
> the list as well, as Red Hat is finding out.
Erik, can you point us to an article about this worm? Thanks!
Chris (RedHat user)
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:01:49 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Is easier to install than Windows? No it isn't!
I'm not so sure. You need to remember that you are probably installing
*many* more packages with mandrake than with a winstall. I found the
Mandrake 7.x installs to be as easy or easier to install than windows,
esp. when you factor in the number of programming languages, servers,
databases, security tools etc. that you can include with the install.
Disk partitioning is certainly no more difficult in mandrake or redhat (
at least it is an option, which is not always the case on windows ).
> Yes, but the multiple mess of different toolkits on Linux + whatever mean
> you end up with differing standards for different products instead of an
> orthogonal whole.
Is that anything like using Ctrl-F to find something in wordpad, but
needing to go to the dropdown menu in notepad because Ctrl-F simply
doesn't work? Compare that with regex's. The ones that I use in perl
are identical to the ones i use in vi, python etc. Throw in a lotus
Notes client on your win desktop, and you run into the same problem on
windows that you complain about in linux. Build a windows application
using Tk and you run into the same problem.
Then there is another issue: At least linux handles different
standards.
Try this...
Write a text file in bbedit on a mac. save as text. Open that file in
wordpad or notepad in windows. How much garbage do you get because the
winEditors don't recognize the fact that mac's use a different EOL
character. Now, open the same file in the advanced text editor that
comes with the kde utilities. Select mac as the source file. Voila!
no garbage.
Do you see any advantage in that philisophical difference?
In any case, I disagree with your critique to the extent that there is
nothing stopping you from installing only packages built with qt rather
than gtk or vice versa. The only reason to install tools built using
different toolkits is because you see value in having and using those
tools.
This is all about choices, and no one is holding a gun to your head and
making you install gnome tools to run in your kde desktop or vice versa
( or Xt or Tk, etcetcetc ). Moreover, having different widget sets
gives the application developer a choice to select an appropriate set
for the job at hand.
By choosing to install elements built with both toolsets ( I use gnome
for my desktop but include the kde network tools and kde utilities ),
you are making the implicit statement that the elements you have
selected ADD rather than detract from the "orthagonal whole".
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:30:08 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Milton wrote:
>> >
>> > It is pathetic on so many levels:
>> >
>> > (1) Win2K can't compare for stability to any of its server competition.
>> > (2) NT, despite Microsoft's claims, sucked as bad as we said it did.
>> > (3) Microsoft is "proud" of these numbers, which tells you they have no
>> > idea of what an operating system should be.
>>
>> No, it means that MS is being realistic. Linux fails too, and I'd bet it's
>> MTTF is about the same as Win2k's, that is if you'd bother to be realistic.
>
> You are ill-informed.
>
>> Claiming that it's mean (remember, that's average, not extreme) is
>> indefinate is a flat out lie.
>>
>> So, if it's not indefinite, what is Linux's MTTF?
>
> I'm not sure I have even seen a real test. From my own experience, in
> the last few years, I have only seen a few times where Linux failed for
> something other than a hard disk or power failure. I have usually
> upgraded the OS, kernel, or hardware before the system had a chance to
> crash.
>
> On the other hand, the numbers presented by the study agree with my
> observations of 98, NT.
Where I work we are using Linux servers more and more. We had a
problem with badly routed packets from our Intranet which was causing
a load on our main Internet firewall. We initially put a sunscreen
firewall between the Internet firewall and the Intranet to block this
traffic. The sunscreen spf200 was not flexible enough (this has been
fixed in sunscreen efs3.x which is the best commercil firewall I
know). Anyway, we built a box we call TuxScreen which is a patch on
top of a patch of the Linux kernel. These patches allow the TuxScreen
to act as a stealth firewall similar to the sunscreen but with more
rule flexibility than the spf200 (the efs3.x wasn't available at the
time). This box, we have 2 of them actually as they are brilliant,
gets hammered but they don't bat an eyelid. They don't fail. The first
one was installed almost 2 years ago and it has never failed. Of
course the biggest advantage of being a stealth device is it cannot be
attacked directly. As it doesn't keep state it is not vulnerable to
most denial of sevice attacks either. Now do this with any Microsoft OS.
Linux is incredibly stable in a server environment when administered
by people who know what they are doing. It is stable full stop. Stick
it on anybodies desktop with office applications and it will just work.
For most businesses Linux has everything they need now. If they can
only rid themselves of the Microsoft lockin then they would save a huge
amount of money from the increased productivity.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:06:06 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <H%G96.496$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:ke9649.u2d.ln@gd2zzx...
>> From the January 17 SANS NewsBites:
>>
>> --11 January 2001 NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
>> A survey posted on Attrition.org ranks Windows NT as the most vulnerable
>> to crackers, garnering nearly 60% of December defacements. Microsoft
>> may be targeted because it is so widely known, or because it has a
>> reputation for hurrying the release of applications, which suggests that
>> security might take a back seat.
>> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1007-200-4449902.html
>
> Kind of ironic, consider the RameN crew worm that's loose on Red Hat Linux
> 6.2 and 7.0 machines throughout the internet.
>
> In any event, all it takes is one vulnerability and you can make the top of
> the list as well, as Red Hat is finding out.
Yes it is kind of ironic. It is exploiting known bugs in 2 or 3 applications.
These bugs have been fixed a long time ago. Just goes to show that many
people don't update their software when security bugs are found. Oops, didn't
Microsoft just suffer the same thing .. twice from the same guy? At least
this worm isn't costing billions to companies worldwide. If Microsoft can't
protect themselves from known bugs in their own software why are you surprised
that normal redhat users are in the same boat? Archsloch.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:03:23 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >But nobody actually says "Linux is great for me". They say "Linux is
> >great" or "Linux is easier to install than Windows". There's no "for me
> >qualification".
>
> Now here, you are simply indulging in lying. It is this
> sort of bald lying that is really annoying. Quite a few
> of us (myself included) will freely admit that the troubles
> you will have with a PC OS is relately largely to what
> random collection of spare parts you happen to have.
Then take a look at the titles for various posts, and tell me if I'm lying:
"Linux *has* the EDGE" (not Linux has the edge for me)
"Linux, it is great"
As for the "random collection of spare parts", what? You mean Linux can't
cope with it? Despite the fact Windows has no problems at all with it?
> >My needs are always more important to anyone else - to me!
>
> So?
>
> That doesn't mean that other OSes are generally crap because
> they don't suit your magic combination. You're not necessarily
> typical.
Did I say Linux is crap? Please don't put words into my mouth.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:05:08 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I never said "Linux sucks". I did say "Linux lags behind Windows
> >(desktop)".
>
> You don't even know what that is.
>
> [deletia]
>
> You're just an ignorant liar.
This is getting silly. You're another one of the Linux advocates who
doesn't like it when someone threatens their precious little domain so you
fall to meaningless quips.
I shall ignore you from now on. Of course, I'd killfile you, but KNode
doesn't have that feature.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:02:39 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> A worm, a virus, either way damage is down to a system.
As a pro you should know the differences Pete.. its rather important.
> BTW, can you spell "article"?
Now youre being "smallish"
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:10:23 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >The network configuration is in a bunch of tabbed dialogs all in the same
> >place. And where may I ask are the Linux definitions. /etc/hosts is just
>
> NO, they are not.
I'll answer you on this one.
Take a good look a Windows 98 SE or Windows 2000. They're all in the same
place, in a bunch of tabbed dialogs.
TCP/IP address
Gateway
DNS
etc.
You do know what I'm talking about I take it?
Or are you just a LIAR yourself?
> Or, a bunch of tabbed dialogs.
>
> Can you possibly post something without lying through your teeth?
What on earth are you on about?
It sounds to me like you have not a clue about how to configure networking
on Windows.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: 18 Jan 2001 23:08:59 GMT
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:38:47 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 18 Jan 2001 05:12:06
>>On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:31:48 GMT, Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>>>>I think E.F. is right on this one. Until some issues are addressed --
>>>>mostly in terms of ease of use out of the box -- Linux can't be
>>>>a direct plug-in replacement for Windows. (Remember that most businesses
>>>>can't swap out all of their infrastructure at once; they do it a
>>>>piece at a time.)
>>>
>>>Utter crap! In the mainframe world this kind of move is done all
>>>the time.
>>
>>What on earth are you talking about ? Are you saying that companies
>>just overhaul their mainframe systems whenever they fell the urge ?
>>
>>> And before there were Windows and PC's people did things
>>>the old manual way with pen and paper.
>>>
>>>How did we get from pen and paper to the PC?
>>
>>Gradually.
>>
>>Nobody overhauled their entire infrastructure overnight.
>
>Well, that's the point. Nobody ever said that any 'entire
>infrastructure' had to be overhauled at all, let alone overnight.
>That's got nothing to do with replacing Windows with Linux on the
>desktop. Nothing.
"Charlie" said "utter crap" in response to TGITM's remark:
>>>> (Remember that most businesses
>>>>can't swap out all of their infrastructure at once; they do it a
>>>>piece at a time.)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
