Linux-Advocacy Digest #675, Volume #31 Tue, 23 Jan 01 11:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The *BEST* advertising! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The *BEST* advertising! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:58:04 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 23 Jan
2001 02:18:19 +0100;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 22 Jan
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 22 Jan
>>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan
>>>>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a convention, not a rule of routing or the IP protocol.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is not a convention. Look up the appropriate RFC's. The private IP
>>>>>address ranges should never appear on the Internet.
>>>>
>>>> That's what we call a convention. Notice the "should". Where as,
>>>> 0.0.0.0, and 127.0.0.1 *cannot* appear on the Internet. Get it?
>>>
>>>I 'should' have said must. Now tell me why '0.0.0.0, and 127.0.0.1
>>>*cannot* appear on the Internet'? It just takes a misconfigured router.
>>>There is nothing magical about these addresses. You really are clueless.
>
>I concede this point as I only recall seeing these addresses on local
>subnets (nmap can generate packets with these addresses).
Well, see, here's where we get to learn something, Roy. Those weren't
on your "local subnets". They were on your local host. None of those
packets ever got out the interface and onto the Ethernet. TCP/IP stacks
won't do that, by design.
But it is instructive in the dark arts of networkology that you'll see
them in nmap all the same. ;-)
[...]
>>>Again you just don't know what you are talking about. NAT is essential
>>>if you are using private addresses on your Intranet.
>>
>> Boy, you are a fucking idiot, aren't you? NAT is entirely unnecessary
>> if you are using private addresses on your Intranet. The only reason
>> you would have to translate an address is if you are going to be using
>> it on the Internet.
>>
>> (Think hard, and don't make assumptions about what you just read.)
>
>Christ, I've been talking about firewalls. Any company that uses private
>addresses must use NAT if they want Internet access. I thought this was
>obvious but apparently not.
Yes, it was; I was baiting you. I was also hoping that you'd see the
fact that your words could easily have been read the other way, even by
someone who knows what they're talking about, but for some reason
unknown to you presumed your context was different (probably because
their's was). It even crossed my mind that you may be capable of taking
the logical leap to recognizing that this could well have been what
happened when you read my words, and thus derived your clearly erroneous
conclusion that I don't know what I'm talking about. Sorry, I know I
can be a bit obtuse, at times.
[...]
>It is no wonder I don't know what you are trying to say most of the time
>as you are talking crap.
Keep trying. Perhaps if you re-read it a couple of times...?
[...]
>You'r just being pedantic again. Whether I meant layer or level it
>was quite obvious what I meant.
Well, obvious to you. It was also obvious to me that you thought it was
obvious to everyone. Equally obvious was it to me that you would not be
capable of recognizing when it wasn't obvious to someone for some reason
which was not obvious to you.
But I guess I'm being pedantic, again.
I will point out that the reason I made a point of distinguishing layers
from levels is that there are other models, unknown to you, which do use
levels instead of layers, and the reason why there's a distinction
becomes important for reasons you understand when you learn those other
models, which you haven't learned yet.
Trust the teacher, Roy. I've been through this before.
>I'm not going to disagree about your
>defintion of layers. There isn't a 1 to 1 relation between TCP/IP or
>any other protocol built on IP.
I'm not sure precisely what you meant, here, but I appreciate the spirit
of the message. In point of fact, though, there is a one to one
relationship between a layer of the OSI model and anything which you
want to abstract with the OSI model.
>You said the P in PAT was proxy which
>is just wrong. The P Max is for Port translation in TCP (and UDP on
>stateful firewalls such as fw-1 and sunscreen).
Congratulations. I have made an error, and it was a rather embarrassing
one. Tried to bluff an acronym. My bad.
[...]
>> I've been through this discussion with no less than a dozen people on
>> Usenet, and literally hundreds, potentially thousands, of people
>> throughout the industry. The only two results that have ever occurred
>> is a) they give up, and consider me wrong or b) they recognize I am
>> correct.
>>
>> Which are you going to go for?
>
>Well I know from other threads frequented by you, pre-emptive multitasking
>comes to mind, that I will never win in your mind. Still one must try. :-)
On the whole, those two or three people who discussed pre-emptive
multi-tasking with any degree of competence and civility were quite
right in their comments, and I enjoyed learning a lot. None of the
assholes who couldn't see past their rather childish need to blindly try
to ridicule and scream "clueless!" will ever win, in my mind.
Rest assured that I'm not engaging in any speculation for curiosity's
sake when it comes to networking. This is my profession.
[...]
>> It doesn't matter. Squid is a piece of software. Software just does
>> what it does, it doesn't "function at any layer" other than whatever
>> layer YOU are abstracting it as. Of course, since you don't really have
>> any definition of the abstractions which each layer encompasses, you
>> have no method whatsoever for consistently, accurately, or practically
>> *applying* the knowledge of "on which layer does squid function".
>>
>> My model, in contrast, provides these things. But the first step to
>> understanding it is to get rid of this ingenuous and disfunctional
>> notion that "the OSI stack" is a "software architecture". It doesn't
>> work like that, because the technology which it was originally designed
>> to be an architecture *for* is now rather trivial and even outdated.
>
>Christ (lucky I'm not religeous) squid is an application. It runs at
>the application layer. Stop trying to squirm out of it. You were wrong.
>Have the courtesy to admit it.
LOL! Oh, yes, I'm on the ropes now! Its on the application layer,
because its an application! Guffaw!
(Hint: which presentation did you run for that application? What's that
layer do, huh? And why isn't there a 'server layer'?)
>> Pop Quiz: What software architecture was the OSI reference model
>> created for? (Hint: "the OSI architecture" is not a valid answer.)
>
>OSI is a standard and was not created for any software architecture.
The architecture was originally referred to as the Integrated Services
Digital Network. The formal remnants of this all-encompassing vision of
an enhanced digital end-to-end multipurpose communications *phone
system* is the broadband and subscriber line data link layer services we
know as ATM and ISDN, respectively.
Did you know the telephone carriers use all seven layers for every
single link? So how come when you get a carrier line, its just layer
one? And how do "applications" run when they don't have computers, just
phone switches?
>If
>you want to know which language was designed to implement the OSI stack
>for realtime OS's then it would be CHILL. The CCITT tried to ensure
>that all telecoms software was developed in CHILL (much like the US DoD
>wanted ADA to be used for all defense software). I have developed software
>in CHILL and know what an abortion of a committe designed language it is.
Fascinating. I'd never heard of it.
[...]
>Those who can do, those who can't teach. It is clear where you fit in. I
>feel sorry for your students.
Actually, anyone who has ever seen an engineer make a presentation knows
very well the reality of the matter: those who cannot teach, can only
do.
>> I've been working with firewalls since before there were firewalls. And
>> unlike practically everyone else in the industry, I never had to learn
>> the difference between firewalls, screening routers, and NAT, because I
>> was never under the impression they were the same thing.
>
>Your ignorance just amazes me. It is clear you have no real world experience.
>I never said these things were the same thing. I said that most if not all
>firewalls have NAT functionality. Of course you can do NAT on your external
>router if it has that functionality. It's a choice. I choose to do NAT on
>interior firewalls. I can choose when I need NAT or not on the firewall.
Blah blah blah. What you did was start stomping your feet and raising a
hissy fit because you didn't understand something I said, and now you'd
like to reduce the argument to some asinine question of whether firewall
one has a NAT function. You can choose to do whatever you want, fine:
choose to stop being a jerk.
>One
>firewall I administer has 8 subnets hanging off it. Two are the Intranet
>and DMZ (which goes to the outer firewall). The others are what we call
>content zones where the servers live. Why so many subnets? This is a large
>company with many remote branches. Many of the servers are connected via
>leased lines.
Wow. Eight whole subnets? Or did you mean, eight network interface
cards?
>>>I just don't believe a word of this. You are sounding more and more
>>>like the wintrolls on this list.
>>
>> Let that be a lesson to you.
>>
>>>It is clear you have little or no
>>>knowledge / experience with regard to IP networking and firewalls in
>>>particular.
>>
>> Yes, I'm sure. Nobody engages in chest-beating like Unix admins talking
>> about networking, that's one piece of knowledge and experience which
>> seems accurate enough.
>
>I know you will never admit to being wrong.
That's bullshit; I do it all the time.
>It is probably genetic and
>nothing I can say will convince you.
Well, it would certainly help if I were wrong.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: The *BEST* advertising!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:58:21 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 23 Jan 2001
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[snip]
>> Nonsense! I'm not baiting Flatbrain. He's doing this all by his
>> own accord.
>
>And maybe collecting a token payment from Microsoft for polluting the
>Linux newsgroups. Although I tend not to believe this theory as even
>Microsoft has been known to fire incompetents. Just look at the long
>list of executives taking early retirement this past year....
You don't think he posts anonymously because the *Linux* people might
find out who he is, do you? ;-)
>> He's providing the Linux community with the best advertising they've
>> seen in years! People will read Flatfoosh's messages and immediately
>> read the counter responses.
>
>Way more responses than Flat-face deserved, but I think that's what
>makes it so much fun for Flat-ass; watching all the hate and discontent
>he/she stirred up. Like an arsonist watching a fire.
Its obviously a power-kick thing. But as immature as it might be,
Charlie does have a point. By making archetypic ally moronic the
arguments against Linux, claire does present an opportunity for
discussion, if nothing else. But on the whole its more stressful,
frustrating, and non-productive to feed the trolls.
>> And they will WONDER what Linux is and run out and get it.
>> I want you to know that Mr. Linonut here has personally drove
>> 9 by-standers off the sidelines to use Linux since he's showed
>> up here.
>
>That would make twelve. I can add three more.
I hope nobody's counting me. Believe me, flathead had nothing to do
with that.
>> What happens is the E-mail me, then they ask if they can try
>> Linux. Then I tell them about the different distributions,
>> and make my recommendation, then they get installed.
>
>And they seem to get installed without all the problems Flat-butt keeps
>encountering. What's hilarious is that Flat-ulence always seems to
>encounter "new" problems that have been fixed three or four releases
>ago. Sorta like Flat surfs the newsgroups for FUD fodder, but doesn't
>look at the posting dates.
>
>> Flatbush is litterally destroying his own marketplace for Windows.
>> It's obvious he knows nothing about computers, always speaks in
>> terms of a brainless user, and he always makes negative posts
>> about Linux without any sort of technical backing.
>
>I've been in this business for nearly thirty years, and Flat-dork is
>without a doubt the most ignorant user I've ever encountered.
>
>> He's like Erik Fuckenbush only with a brain.
>> He won't go there unless he's certain.
>> And never mind if he was full of shit to begin with, it's
>> his own viewpoint which drives him.
>
>Erik is sorta likeable, he's so extreme. Sorry, but I can't put him in
>the same class as the predictable, stupid, ill-informed Flat-enbush.
Yeah, but what about Chad Myers? He's as ignorant as steve/flatskull,
and more annoying than Erik.
>> You will never catch Flatfidder making comparisons between IDE
>> drives and SCSI drives like Fukenbush does. Flatboy don't go
>> there unless he knows something about it, "in his own mind"...
>
>Flat-phallus wouldn't know the difference between IDE and SCSI anymore
>than he/she knows the difference between a suppository and a Microsoft
>operating system. (BTW, what is the difference?)
I don't know. ;-D
>> Erwik on the other hand will just mindlessly post comment about
>> anything which comes to his brain, truethful, factual or not...
>
>Hmmm. maybe Erwik _IS_ Flat-liner since you put it that way.
Nah. It occurred to me that Chad might be, but, hell, I can't tell any
of them apart from their posts, anymore.
>> Flatsixpack is from the Pontiac Wide track generation.
>> He is middle aged, loves Windows, and has a fat wide ass.
>
>Hey! I'm middle-aged, and have a fat ass. I take offense at your
>insinuation that having an old, wide ass makes you a Windoze lover.
It is neither necessary nor sufficient. Charlie is practicing his
hyperbole, again.
>> You have to have a wide track to park that wide butt in
>> to make it home to post this wide bulletins.
>
>Jeez, that Jack Daniels is really kicking your butt. I remember the
>first time I got that shitfaced; I hope you like worshipping at the
>altar of the god of porcelaine.
>
>> So, quit trying to kill my free advertising here.
>
>Naw, we wouldn't do that, this group needs all the humor it can get.
I was ROTFLMAO at "Erwik", TBH.
>> Hope this helps!
>
>Not really, but I hope you feel OK in the morning. Menudo helps.
>
>> Charlie
>
>Paolo
Max
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: The *BEST* advertising!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:58:33 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 03:56:20
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Nonsense! I'm not baiting Flatbrain. He's doing this all by his
>> own accord.
>
>Really? I happen to believe otherwise. Apparently, so do others.
Yea, you and Ayende. You and Ayende, and Erik and Chad, and
Flatella/steve/clair. This group is getting really *tired*, you know?
>> He's providing the Linux community with the best advertising they've
>> seen in years! People will read Flatfoosh's messages and immediately
>> read the counter responses.
>
>Great. And those who read those counter responses think about Linux for a
>few minutes, or hours, and go about their usual business. Those endearing
>enough to TRY Linux do so, so congratulations, you've got yourself a
>convertee. Then they spend a few hours downloading & burning to CDROM, or
>they buy a cheap CD. Or they do what I did, and buy a Retail copy.
>
>Then, they spend an hour installing it (provided a GUI installer is present,
>which it typically is these days).
>
>Then they get to using it.
>
>Then they hit a snag, something isn't supported, somewhere. They look for a
>way to change a setting, they are inundated with infinite minutia, dated
>information, insulting commentary from newsgroups, and incomprehensible
>documentation of what IS available. They give up the hardware search, and
>try software...
>
>They find that something they wanted didn't come with the install, so they
>venture out to find a program on the 'net. They find it, download it, and
>try to install it, only to find that installing software under Linux is a
>little like trying to pull teeth through someone's anus.
>
>They MAY bite the bullet, and try to learn how to do this, they search for
>the information...
>
>6 hours later, they are back in Windows.
Yes, we've heard all that before. So why are you posting it, again?
Seriously, Kyle? Are you just trying to convince yourself its true, or
are you trying to make sure its true? Is there some reason you have
that it annoys you that this is the way that new platforms become
popular? Learning any new computer is frustrating; having a monopoly to
fall back on is not something to enjoy, let alone emphatically support.
If they *don't* manage to make it on their own, then they pay the
Microsoft tax.
6, or 6000, or 6 million reboots later, they just might have second
thoughts. And its viral, of course, so there's early adopters who
search more, and there's late comers who get the impression that it was
always that polished, but one way or the other, they're done with
monopoly crapware.
Why do you have a problem with that?
[...]
>And they get grossly disappointed when the only advice you can dole out is
>"read the howto".
What, you want we should apologize for the fact that it takes knowledge,
even skill, to run a computer? Its not our fault Microsoft blew smoke
up your ass and you believed them. Look, hoping that the evidence
showing that Windows is a load of crap is all well and good, but just
because Microsoft makes promises about how wonderful the world would be
if we just followed One Microsoft Way doesn't mean it actually will when
you get there. The world is never going to *BE* one big ADS directory
that works like in your fantasies if we all spend a few more hundred or
thousand dollars paying Microsoft taxes to get .NET.
You want a nintendo-land version of a PC, buy a Mac.
>> Flatbush is litterally destroying his own marketplace for Windows.
>> It's obvious he knows nothing about computers, always speaks in
>> terms of a brainless user, and he always makes negative posts
>> about Linux without any sort of technical backing.
>
>I think the reasoning he's given has been somewhat light, but then not all
>of us are gifted with the ability to write, in painful detail, WHY we
>dislike something. Effective complaining is an aquired talent.
So write a how-to, if its so effective.
>> He's like Erik Fuckenbush only with a brain.
>> He won't go there unless he's certain.
>> And never mind if he was full of shit to begin with, it's
>> his own viewpoint which drives him.
>
>Who? I'm going to assume this "Erik" (who I think I've herd ABOUT
>before...) is some kind of undesirable person. I would love to read this
>persons posts. I think I will...
>
>> You will never catch Flatfidder making comparisons between IDE
>> drives and SCSI drives like Fukenbush does. Flatboy don't go
>> there unless he knows something about it, "in his own mind"...
>
>As far as most end-users are concerned, SCSI data storage mediums, and IDE
>storage mediums are on par. The technical details are insignificant toward
>the end-user, so why is this bad? As far as I care, the hard drive is
>CONNECTED, connection on one just costs me more...
If the technical details were insignificant toward the end-user, the
prices would be the same. Obviously, there's some reason to prefer one
over the other, for somebody, somewhere. Do you care? I don't care.
About whether you care, I mean. I care about SCSI v. IDE, because I
know why some people would buy one or the other, and what the
significant technical details are.
>> Erwik on the other hand will just mindlessly post comment about
>> anything which comes to his brain, truethful, factual or not...
>
>If this person has a problem, which is reproducible, maybe it should be
>addressed, not dismissed as the ravings of an incompetent individual. God
>forbid Linux should be improved from the input of the "lesser gifted"
>people.
On the other hand, maybe this person is a raving incompetent individual.
Did you ever consider that?
>> Flatsixpack is from the Pontiac Wide track generation.
>> He is middle aged, loves Windows, and has a fat wide ass.
>
>1. What is wrong with a Pontiac?
>2. What is wrong with a Pontiac Wide Track?
>3. You WILL be middle aged some day, baring your death.
>4. You probably already have a fat ass like most people on this forum. If
>not, wait till you qualify for line item number three.
>5. Your grasping at straws by making personal remarks.
Why on earth would you be so pedantic about responding to so obviously
rhetorical and humorous a comment? Frankly, you're grasping at straws
by pretending that this response should be taken seriously.
>> You have to have a wide track to park that wide butt in
>> to make it home to post this wide bulletins.
>
>Cute...
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:58:38 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:37:53
>"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:bQn86.2898$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>> NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server
>> have all proven themselves in the enterprise and have what it takes
>> in terms of performance, security, reliability, and scalability.
>
>Which one of those it the one that actually works, and why do they
>keep selling the others?
LOL!
Whichever one you don't have, of course, so the second answer is rather
obvious.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:58:39 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:08:31
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:94hd9v$fn2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> >> So c't, who has a Spec license (can Mindcraft say that?) and comes from
>> >> the same people who, in a magzine called "ix" extensively cover Windows NT,
>> >> now has "grudges against Microsoft"?
>> >>
>> >> Maybe you should, just for a change, *read* the magazine you are
>> >> criticizing?
>>
>> >Please show me an article in c't that is favorable to Microsoft.
>>
>> >Just one.
>>
>> Issue 2/2001, pages 120-121. A test of "Microsoft WorksSuite 2001".
>> The only test of MS software in this, the latest issue that has made it
>> to Oz, and it comes to the conlusion that the packet is well worth the
>> money, and that in particular the World Atlas component is "so good as to
>> be without any competition".
>>
>> Grudges, indeed....
>
>Ok, I'll give you that one.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Now, (I know you can't answer this, but just think about it), how many
>articles/100 about Microsoft are favorable, or at least non-bashing?
>
>I bet it would be significantly lower, if not zero, than any of the
>mainstream tech magazines (PC World & Magazine, Wired, etc).
>
>Basically, if c't doesn't have an agenda to put down Microsoft at
>almost every attempt, they sure due a good job of making it look
>like that.
So this would support the theory, in other words, that they are unbiased
and fair-minded, and that Microsoft sucks, right?
>Here's a more relevant question, since this whole debate is
>really about the validity and indepence of c't's benchmarks:
>
>Are there any benchmarks showing Microsoft leading anything?
And the lack of such will provide proof of what? The unreliability of
their benchmarks? ? ? ? ?
>ZDNet and several other benchmarkers show Microsoft leading
>quite often. Maybe not the majority of the time, but at
>least SOME of the time. It's my speculation that very few,
>if any of c't's benchmarks show Microsoft in the lead or
>winning.
Its my speculation that the very few benchmarks showing any real lead by
Microsoft are more often manipulated by Microsoft. This speculation is
backed up by a tad bit more, not much, granted, but some, than your
unfalsifiable argument from ignorance that c't is biased because they
don't have many nice things to say about Microsoft. Like the fact that
its been known to happen in the past, and Microsoft is also routinely
known to hire sock puppets.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:58:41 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:58:34
>God forbid business should stop on one of my workstations for *GASP* 3 SOLID
>MINUTES.
Or three seconds, for that matter.
>Or I could forgo the rebooting, and replace the OS with something that no
>only doesn't need to be rebooted, but will make it unusable for as long as
>the computer is powered.
The obvious solution would be to learn how to use it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:58:42 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:03:55
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> > I think you mean incompetent system architect for choosing NT.
>>
>>
>> Incompetent NT LoseDOS admin and incompetetant system architects who
>> choose LoseDOS products....go hand in hand.
>
>Of course, then there are idiots like you who would choose a Linux
>workstation platform as their choice when you knew what would suffer.
>
>UNIX on the desktop isn't pretty. If it were, Microsoft wouldn't be in
>business.
Tada!
And out pops Max to remind everybody that Microsoft isn't in business;
they're monopolists. That's criminal activity, not business.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
