Linux-Advocacy Digest #566, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 02:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" ("Tom Wilson")
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" ("Tom Wilson")
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" ("Tom Wilson")
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" ("Tom Wilson")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ("kiwiunixman")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:58:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:36:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
>Ebert) wrote:
>
>
>>Sad life you have then.
>
>Actually it's quite comical.
>
Getting tired of being Flatfish I see.
>>
>>>Linux could be an applications launcher, if it had applications worth
>>>launching.
>>>
>>
>>It does.
>
>Applications yes.
>Worth launching? err.... no..
>
How would you know. You don't have a brain.
>
>>As with most things, 1/2 like it, 1/2 hate it.
>
>1/2 of what?
>1/100th of computer users out there?
>
If your speaking about Word Perfect,
it's more than that.
>
>>Windows is dead.
>
>You better let the 90 percent + of people using it on their desktop's
>know that because this is serious news.
>
I think anybody holding Microsoft Stock and posting
to Cola is a very desperite man...
What are your plans for retirement anyway?
>>Windows is the OS for the geritol generation.
>
>Yep. The people with all the money :)
>
>
Not if they're holding Microsoft stock.
>
>>It's quicker.
>
>Until you try and actually use it.
>
Nope.
>>
>>Oh yeah. Linux runs okay on even 486's.
>>W2k on the other hand is just like every other
>>Windows OS. It requires a brand new computer to
>>go with it.
>
>But you just said it was for the Geritol generation?
>
>Which one is it?
>
I'm confused here. What part didn't you understand
this time?
>
>
>>I run Debian. You push the buttons.
>
>And nothing happens. Just like those "Walk buttons" that traffic
>lights use. They aren't hooked up to anything. Just a stress relief
>technique.
>
That's only what happens to people who don't know
computers.
>
>>Well then I guess we won't be seeing you back here again
>>then.
>
>I like disproving you Penguinista's.
>
If you've noticed, you haven't disproved anything
to anybody. Your campaign is failing.
Your just adding more users to the Linux pile.
That's all.
>
>>You must use it for a night light.
>
>Even a night light is more useful than Linux.
>So is a toilet brush and a muffler bearing for that matter.
>
And that's what the majority of Windows users are.
They are just USERS with very expensive nightlights.
>>Oh really. I've never heard of a Windows which
>>was intuitive enought to setup up your internet
>>service for you. How is that accomplished anyway
>>without touching the keyboard?
>
>I've never seen a message in the WIndows groups along the lines of "I
>finally set up my dial up after 6 months of trying".
>
You haven't? HA HA HA HA!
That one will get you nowwhere...
We have a tool called WVDIAL.
It's a very nice tool which just want's
your ISP phone number, user name and password.
It figures out the rest. This is probably why
you've never read a message about a Linux user
getting confused in establishing his internet connection.
>
>>Do you have some kind of helmet?
>
>Great band.
>
>Ask Mattius....
>
Spoken like a true psyco.
>
>>Actually the ladies like my XMMS and SBLive module
>>better than their 98 or ME boxes.
>
>Somehow I doubt that.
>If you're discussing PC's with ladies you need more help than I
>originally thought.
>
>
Since your running Windows and haven't attracted a crowd
of your own, how would you know?
Windows is very dull.
>
>
>>>Read the "Font De-Uglification" How-To for details.
>>>
>>
>>Yes we have fonts. Even the ability to use Windows Fonts.
>
>Not anti-aliased you don't. Even if you do STEAL the fonts.
>Why don't you have decent ones of your own.
>
You can't STEAL the font's. Not if you OWN the CD.
>I'm calling Gates and telling him how you steal his fonts :)
>
Do you want his number?
>>
>>Yes it does. The Windows player is about as attractive
>>as a pay toilet or a Ford Pinto.
>
>Xmms looks like shit....
>
XMMS is far superior to the generic vanilla crap
you get with Windows. I've never met a kid who
enjoyed using Windows to play MP3's.
Even our Napster is better than yours.
You truely live in a sad grey land.
>Next time you're in NYC I'll be glad to give you a demo.
>
I'll pass. I don't need another Windrolls vanilla demo
of a staticy mp3 player.
There stuff is like mom's wallpaper.
It's poop my friend!
>>Yes. digital pictures you know.
>>Like your comment earlier about digital sounds.
>
>
>No... The Soundblaster Live Can't create Digital Sounds under Linsux
>because the digital ports don't work.
>
Now that's a stupid comment. OF course they do.
How else does XMMS work dumshit?
The ONLY way your going to play an analog signal thru
a sound card with with an analog cable which is usually
attached to your cdrom.
Computers are digital devices. 1's and 0's.
But I forgot you said you were retired from IBM.
>Titanic was pure numbers....
>
>
Yeah! That's right! 1's and 0's.
I think he's getting it!
Very good! You get a cookie.
>
>
>>Ladies don't think so.
>
>
>You're a dreamer.
>
Nope. I have 3 ladies in my house
and they all love Linux.
>>Nope. The Ladies love it.
>
>You're watching too much Jerry Springer.
>
I'm not a homo momo.
>
>>Microsoft office absolutely wins the bloat battle.
>>It's 4 times the size.
>
>
>And does 48 times as much.
>
Well, I can see you admit Microsoft is indeed bloated
with this comment. It is bloated.
You have no control over what you install when you
put w2k on your machine. It just throws the entire
shitload of crap on that expensive drive of yours.
Loads it down with crap and then you reach for your
Microsoft office and throw even more crap on it.
Before 3 hours have gone by your drive is eaten
mostly away with commercial bloatware which bluescreens
every 4 hours. That's Windows.
>
>>Debian leaves it's users with a better taste in their mouths.
>
>
>I won't go there but you can imagine........
>
Since your a Windows user I can believe this comment.
You must have a very, very bad taste in your mouth.
>>It installs so automatically using Dselect.
>
>Good name for an install program Dselect.
>Now that's intuitive.
>
I thought you would like it.
Most Windows users see Linux things as negative.
This is because they live in a negative world.
>
>
>>BTW, a large chunk of the WINDOWS BLOAT is you have NO CONTROL
>>over what you are installing. Debian is the BEST at eliminating
>>BLOAT!
>
>You have no choice. You HAVE to or else God knows what you will end up
>with.
>
Yes. But I have 400 megs of Debian on this machine and it's ONLY
what I want. And it runs just fine.
Microsoft should really be fined by the EPA for plastic pollution
from all the CD's they burn to sell.
>
>>
>>HA! Your crazy. I do this interactively on the screen.
>>You SHOULD at least use it before you comment.
>
>You're a liar.
>Tell me one News reader that does that as well as reads offline and
>actually works, unlike Pan.
>
Whoops. You inserted the word OFFLINE.
That wasn't there before.
But none the less. If you had a brain you would have already
figured this out. Linux has a newsserver of it's own.
Hense my fancy address you don't have.
And because of this, I have access to offline news from any
Debian box in my house. And also on my Portable.
>I'll save you the time.
>
>In fact I'll even demonstrate it for you:
>
>This message comes courtesy of Charlie to himself.
>No closing the program, just changing the properties on the fly as I
>read your drival..
>
>Enjoy....
>
>>
>>>
>>>Flatfish
>>>Why do they call it a flatfish?
>>>Remove the ++++ to reply.
>
After seeing your new E-mail reply address and hearing
your comments about Windows and Women, I believe
perhaps some masterbation therapy is in order.
So go masterbate for a while and we'll CUL.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:59:56 GMT
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You must understand, by todays point and click generation, hes a fucking
> genious, my opinion, get him to admin an NT server farm in a large
> corperation for a couple of years, then he will know the horror of
Windows!
>
There's one plus to being an NT admin, as I see it. Job security. You're
almost always needed! You're the most important member of the IT team!
Without your constant dicking and clicking, the network won't stay up!
Uggggh.
Viva Unix/Linux/BSD!
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:03:20 GMT
"Salvador Peralta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> kiwiunixman wrote:
> >
> > You must understand, by todays point and click generation, hes a
fucking
> > genious, my opinion, get him to admin an NT server farm in a large
> > corperation for a couple of years, then he will know the horror of
Windows!
>
> I'm not sure he's qualified. He just sent me an email which conceded
> that cli tools are often better than gui tools but which also explained
> that his job is to "help everyday users with everyday technology which
> does not consist of UNIX, HTML, or any other programming code".
>
Oh, I see...
"Ok, now, restart the system. Did that help? Hmmmm. It doesn't do that
here! Have you called Microsoft? Hmmm..."
A McConsultant
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:04:56 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ian Pulsford wrote:
> >
> > Edward Rosten wrote:
> > >
> > > Pete Goodwin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2675184,00.html
> > >
> > > Its a fairly poor atricle. Firstly its very confrontational, secondly
it
> > > uses the very old Linux-is-not-like-windows-so-its-too-hard mantra.
This
> > > guy expects to go from Windows to Linux with zero effort and zero
> > > learning (how long did he spend learning windows in the first
place?).
> >
> > About as long as he spent learning HTML.
>
> Yeah, the guy claims he designs web pages and doesn't seem to know HTML.
> Sounds more like a kiddie than a geek by trade.
Sounds more like a FrontPage user than anything...
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:06:30 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
> You are absolutely right. Linux is no Windows killer.
>
> With proud uptimes like:
>
> Win2K: MTTF 2893 Hours (120 days)
> NT: MTTF 919 Hours (38 Days)
> Win98: MTTF 216 Hours (9 days)
>
> Microsoft will destroy itself.
Pointless to kill the suicidal, isn't it?
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:06:54 GMT
In article <9488js$d6i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <9469te$l63$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16168.html
>
>A quote from the above website:
>
>"The worm's strategy is not dissimilar to that employed
> by the 1988 Morris worm, the most successful
> self-propelled contagion to date. But unlike the Morris
> worm, on every system Ramen penetrates, it promptly kills
> the service that allowed it to break in-thus preventing
> the kind of multiple infection that caused the Morris
> worm to grind infected computers into seizure."
>
>And now, on to the Windoze-bashing and Linux promoting:
>
>Can anyone name a Windoze virus which kindly
>FIXES THE HOLE it came in through?
>
>It probably still sucks for the administrator who has
>to go in and permanently fix the problem that he should
>have been foresighted enough to fix IN THE FIRST PLACE,
>but at least the virus put a BIG RED FLAG on the
>security hole for the administrator!
>
>Windoze Virus: "HAHAHAHAHAHA! YOUR SYSTEM IS DEAD!
>EAT CRAP YOU SUCKERS! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
>
>Linux Virus: "Sorry old chap, I've infected your
>system; here, let me help you *fix* the security
>hole I used to infect your system."
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
That still cracks me up.
With I love you, an honest 80% of the worlds ISP were quickly
sending out E-mails to infect the rest of the SAD windows
community.
This RedHat worm actually FIXed their security problem.
Then it went on to fix other RedHat systems with the same
problem.
RedHat needs to wake up here.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:08:43 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:946a6j$lfs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Microsoft will destroy itself.
>
> We can but hope.
>
> > Linux will step in, easily, when people wake up an realize the crap
they
> > have been using for so long.
>
> And then they'll start complaining about the "crap" in Linux!
Then give 'em a typewriter and a calculator then bid them adiou!
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:11:06 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ABh96.4222$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > in article aRO%5.20459$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 19/12/00 7:40 pm:
> > >>>> a power switch is indeed intuitive in that:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - it's a natural action to push it
> > >>>> - the effects are immediately noticeable
> > >>>> - it is prominently placed in most instances.
> > >
> > >>> Is that all you can think of?
> > >
> > >> - It's been in use for decades.
> > >> - They are manufacturered in the millions.
> > >> - They're cheap.
> > >
> > > How do those make a power switch intuitive?
> > >
> > >> I'm not sure what you're looking for, admittedly...did you have
something
> > >> specific in mind?
> > >
> >
> > Put it this way, Microsoft doesn't make light switches.
> > That's why they are intuitive.
> > You don't have to log on and type in your password to
> > push the switch,
> > you don't have to hook up to Windows Update to make it
> > so the light switch doesn't exlode.
> > You don't have to pay $80 every year to make sure you
> > have the latest software running on it, and HERE's a
> > suprise: backward compatibility.
> > Just imagine, you walk in to an electrical shop:
> > "Yes, you have the 1994 model running Windows 95, you need to make sure
you
> > put Windows 98 on it, or otherwise you'll have to buy this $150 adaptor
to
> > make sure that it will work with modern lightbulbs. Oh, and when you do
> > update your lightbulb make sure you download the patch for it from
> > suckass.microsoft.com!"
> > Almost makes you wonder, why doesn't Linus Torvalds and Steve Jobs get
> > together and make a lightbulb manufacturing company?
>
> Thank god Linus or the original designers didn't invent the light switch.
>
> If they did, all we'd have is four wires sticking out of the wall and
> a warning sticker that said, "WARNING: the amperage of the electrical
> current flowing through the copper wire is sufficient to cause tissue
> damage and possible cardio-pulimnary failure resulting in possible
> life loss".
>
> It doesn't actually tell you that if you grab the wires, you die. Kinda
> like all Unix/Linux error messages.
Its a conspiracy aimed at eliminating the unenlightened non-initiate.
Be afraid. Be very, very afraid...
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:13:00 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Tom Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > in article aRO%5.20459$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 19/12/00 7:40 pm:
> > > >>>> a power switch is indeed intuitive in that:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> - it's a natural action to push it
> > > >>>> - the effects are immediately noticeable
> > > >>>> - it is prominently placed in most instances.
> > > >
> > > >>> Is that all you can think of?
> > > >
> > > >> - It's been in use for decades.
> > > >> - They are manufacturered in the millions.
> > > >> - They're cheap.
> > > >
> > > > How do those make a power switch intuitive?
> > > >
> > > >> I'm not sure what you're looking for, admittedly...did you have
something
> > > >> specific in mind?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Put it this way, Microsoft doesn't make light switches.
> > > That's why they are intuitive.
> > > You don't have to log on and type in your password to
> > > push the switch,
> > > you don't have to hook up to Windows Update to make it
> > > so the light switch doesn't exlode.
> > > You don't have to pay $80 every year to make sure you
> > > have the latest software running on it, and HERE's a
> > > suprise: backward compatibility.
> > > Just imagine, you walk in to an electrical shop:
> > > "Yes, you have the 1994 model running Windows 95, you need to make
sure you
> > > put Windows 98 on it, or otherwise you'll have to buy this $150
adaptor to
> > > make sure that it will work with modern lightbulbs. Oh, and when you
do
> > > update your lightbulb make sure you download the patch for it from
> > > suckass.microsoft.com!"
> > > Almost makes you wonder, why doesn't Linus Torvalds and Steve Jobs
get
> > > together and make a lightbulb manufacturing company?
> >
> > Thank god Linus or the original designers didn't invent the light
switch.
> >
> > If they did, all we'd have is four wires sticking out of the wall and
> > a warning sticker that said, "WARNING: the amperage of the electrical
> > current flowing through the copper wire is sufficient to cause tissue
> > damage and possible cardio-pulimnary failure resulting in possible
> > life loss".
> >
> > It doesn't actually tell you that if you grab the wires, you die. Kinda
> > like all Unix/Linux error messages.
> >
> > It also doesn't tell you which two of the four wires are necessary
> > to turn on the light. By the way, if you get it wrong and cross the
wrong
> > two wires, you'll blow the circuit and have to replace the fuse which
is
> > hidden inside the wall and requires knocking out part of the wall to
> > reach.
>
> Conversely, with M$ LoseDOS, you get ABSOLUTELY NO FREAKING INFORMATION,
> just a little window that pops up:
You've asked me to turn on a light! Is this OK? [Yes] [No] [Ask the
gedanken Paper Clip]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:15:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:40:54 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I suspect the Winvocates are happily running their applications while
>the Linvoactes star at a command line.
>
No we don't star at a command line usually.
If you want star office you just click the button.
>I've seen MVS/XA systems stay up for years. Am I going to balance my
>taxes on one?
>
Humm.. And the point here was?
>Applications.
>
>Think applications..
>
>
>
>Flatfish
>Why do they call it a flatfish?
>Remove the ++++ to reply.
There are 4,400 applications on Debian 2.2R2.
There will be over 7,000 on Woody.
They say there are 12,000 floating around for Windows
of which 35% are runnable on W2k.
That's one beef from my ladies, W2k don't napster
worth a shit.
I potatoed em all!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:02:29 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:LuQ96.3021$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:UCh96.4223$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:zX896.2827$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:KZY86.1680$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:OZP86.2713$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:DQC86.3397$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:a9y86.159$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:Yfp86.2938$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Actually, it shows how difficult it *IS* to find
> backdoors.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It took them 6 months to find this backdoor, with
> thousands of
> > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > looking at the source code.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Per my other post, there are exactly 35 developers on the
> > > Firebird
> > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > Some of them have joined relatively recently. SourceForge
> shows
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > no one
> > > > > > > > > has downloaded their pre-release kits yet.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Your "thousands of people" are as vaprous as closed-source
> > > security
> > > > > is.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But what about the thousands who supposedly review Linux.
> From
> > > > > > > developers,
> > > > > > > > to watchdog groups, to tinkerers, you'd think most of the
> obvious
> > > > > bugs
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > be flushed out immediately. However, every shipping Linux
> release
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > all major distributors still comes riddled with security
> exploits
> > > not
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > mention all other bugs. If Open Source is so superior, and
> all
> > > this
> > > > > > > > peer review actually happens as you people say, then how are
> these
> > > > > > > glaring
> > > > > > > > bugs slipping through so frequently?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Its' impossible for all bugs to be rooted out of a large
> software
> > > > > project.
> > > > > > > Only the most glaring and obvious show up quickly. It takes
> time for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > more subtle ones to present themselves. With open source, the
> option
> > > > > exists
> > > > > > > to patch them as they come along as opposed to placing a bug
> report
> > > > > with a
> > > > > > > vendor and counting on them to actually heed it and provide a
> patch
> > > in
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > timely manner (or in some cases at all).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So basically you're saying that Open Source offers no advantage
> for
> > > large
> > > > > > projects? This is basically what I've been saying all along.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I'm pointing out something that should be obvious - There's no
> > > perfect
> > > > > system. I, indeed pointed out an advantage to open source, though.
> You
> > > > > neglected to quote the whole response.
> > > >
> > > > You may not be saying that OSS is perfect, but others are implying
> that.
> > > > They are implying that OSS is superior to everything else and that
> there
> > > > is NO reason why you WOULDN'T want to use OSS.
> > >
> > > To put it in a more rational light, there are many compelling reasons
> for
> > > chosing OSS over CSS. And those have been discussed, shouted,
> filibustered,
> > > grunted, flamed, and what-not ad-infinitum. IMO, CSS's only advantage
> is
> > > stricter control and less deviation from a set standard. The fewer
> cooks at
> > > the pot thing. Again, IMO, that alone isn't enough to justify it.
> > > Particularly when it comes to the CSS OS we oft discuss around here.
> >
> > OTOH, there's no compelling reason for OSS. The stated advantages are oft
> > never realized (peer review, greater security, better design, etc).
> > Particularly when it comes to the OSS OS we oft discuss around here.
>
> If that were the case it wouldn't be running on so many servers and we
> wouldn't be bickering about its' benefits/non-benefits.
Well, that doesn't make much sense, now does it?
The same would be said about CSS. The thing with OSS is, it's not about
OSS, it's simply because Linux is free. People use it, but hardly anyone
bets the company one it, and the ones who have are mostly out of business
now.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:03:18 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9wQ96.3022$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:03:32 GMT, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:zX896.2827$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>
> > >> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> news:KZY86.1680$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> >
> > >> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> > news:OZP86.2713$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [deletia]
> > >> To put it in a more rational light, there are many compelling reasons
> for
> > >> chosing OSS over CSS. And those have been discussed, shouted,
> filibustered,
> > >> grunted, flamed, and what-not ad-infinitum. IMO, CSS's only advantage
> is
> > >> stricter control and less deviation from a set standard. The fewer
> cooks at
> > >> the pot thing. Again, IMO, that alone isn't enough to justify it.
> > >> Particularly when it comes to the CSS OS we oft discuss around here.
> > >
> > >OTOH, there's no compelling reason for OSS. The stated advantages are
> oft
> > >never realized (peer review, greater security, better design, etc).
> > >Particularly when it comes to the OSS OS we oft discuss around here.
> >
> > ...except when it comes to commodity supercomputing in
> > academia and the oil industry... <snicker>
>
> I'll not even mention the Web server thing....<chortle>
Oh you mean the heavily inflated web server thing? The grossly unscientific
misrepresentative web server thing? Where every virtual host is counted
as a sever thus doubling or trippling the server numbers?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:18:26 GMT
Why have you replied to mine off topic?
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Some wintrol wrote:
>
> > > Check out www.grc.com or better yet www.hackerwhacker.com on a newly
> > > installed Linux system and a Windows 2k system as well.
>
> OK -
>
> >
> > > Linux is WIDE OPEN to attack and only a seasoned pro is going to know
> > > how to shut things down via inetd to make it reasonably safe.
>
> Nope, you are dead wrong - it shows Linux is locked down.
>
> BTW what specific distro & version do you mean by "Linux"?
>
> > > I would be terrified to run a newly installed Linux system on a cable
> > > or dsl or any "on all the time" connection because you WILL be hacked
> > > in short order.
>
> Nope - sorry, the facts just don't back you up here...
>
> Nice try, wintroll
>
> jjs
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
