Linux-Advocacy Digest #677, Volume #31 Tue, 23 Jan 01 13:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The *BEST* advertising! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Poor Linux (Martin Eden)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The *BEST* advertising! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (Mark Styles)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (Mark Styles)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (Mark Styles)
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The *BEST* advertising! (.)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (.)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:46:33 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:57:28
>"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> > Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:22:28
>> > [...]
>> > >Now you've crossed the line. You've asked T. Max Devlin to produce facts.
>> > >Don't you know that that would break his streak of fact-less posts?
>> >
>> > That it would require intense research in order to point out your
>> > baseless presumptions and trivial fabrications is a rather laughable
>> > suggestion, Chad.
>>
>> I recommend against taking the time to research facts for refuting Chad.
>
>Well, no one has been doing that, so it shouldn't be a big loss.
>
>I present fact after fact after fact, and all you guys (Max, you, et al
>except for Ghost in the Machine) do is critize, personally attack, and
>spew forth baseless supposition.
>
>> I wasted a couple of hours over the weekend looking up Hot 100 uptimes, and
>> Chad won't even bother to respond to the post. He much perfers to make up
>> his own statistics.
>
>Start a new thread, I told you. This thread is talking about Fortune 500.
>Why do you insist on ignoring this? Fortune 500 is, IMHO, as important, or
>more important than the Hot 100. I think it's more reasonable to see what
>Dell, Compaq, Merril Lynch, Fidelity, and many other huge corporations are
>using for their critical web eCommerce infrastructure than what eGroups
>uses for their message boards, wouldn't you? In 2 years, who's more likely
>to a.) still be in business b.) have the web still be in their primary
>business category? Hint: It isn't likely to be eGroups.
>
>These guys are in it for the long haul, not the quick buck, and they've
>overwhelmingly chosen IIS and iPlanet and ditched Apache.
>
>There are the facts, why do you continually try to change the subject
>or avoid them, without posting any of your own facts to refute them.
>
>Why are you so afraid of the truth, Bobby?
Good troll, Chad. Nice subtle use of dishonesty, and I particularly
like the continued attempts to narrow the focus of the discussion. If I
didn't know better (and I don't), I'd swear your post was written by a
pathological liar; you must be very proud.
--
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: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:50:22 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:53:30
[...]
>Two months is on the low end of the norm for Win2K. The NTSL studdy showed
>that the average Win2K uptime for a desktop user, even is 7200 hours or so.
>For servers, it's much higher.
The NTSL showed that what they called 'mean time to failure" was 7200
hours or so: the "uptime" was about 8 hours.
>You haven't used Win2K have you? Its was more solid than Linux.
If the grammar were corrected, that would be a blatant fabrication.
--
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: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:52:21 GMT
Said Ed Allen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 06:00:40
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:38:11
> [...]
>>>You are so misunderstanding what is being said. I'm merely pointing out why
>>>multi-platform support, (which this thread had veered into), was/is so poor
>>>as to be non-existent.
>>
>>But you are mistaken; I am not misunderstanding you, I'm disagreeing
>>with you. I am merely pointing out that the reason multi-platform
>>support is poor is because of illegal behavior, and that alone. Your
>>attempts to rationalize it as 'appropriate behavior under certain
>>circumstances' is a thinly veiled apology for a monopolist.
>>
> I would like to inject here that I think the reason, though they
> would deny it, that M$ dropped the other ports of NT and never even
> attempted a port of WinDOS was that adapting to other hardware
> forces a rationalizing of interfaces which would have made cloning
> like WINE easier.
>
> M$ seems to think that doing things in intricate, convoluted ways
> shows how smart they are. It is really just being clever. Being smart
> is doing things as simply and efficiently as possible which
> competitors do but monopolies do not.
>
> Their clever hacks do not cross over to other platforms well. I
> suspect that is why it took them ten years to go from 16 to 32 bits
> and why Linux which does things simply and logically outperforms
> both WinDOS and NT.
>
> This may also explain why they have been unable to merge WinDOS and
> NT after so many years of claiming that they are trying.
Also, why the 64 bit Windows is far behind schedule, being beaten to
Itanium by every other OS on the planet, just about.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [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 17:09:26 GMT
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:48:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
Ebert) wrote:
>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.
The best advertising for Linux is Linux itself.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Martin Eden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:09:36 GMT
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Kyle Jacobs wrote:
~snip~
> > No, it was distinctly "no comment" to your "MATCH.... jerkoff" line...
> > Again, I have no comment as that making rude, personal and often undeserving
> > comments about people on USENET is, cowardly, and wrong.
>
> And trolling isn't?
>
> -Ed
We're on alt.linux.sux. So by definition, you are trolling our group.
Not that I want you to stop. I find the general emotional attachment to
an inanimate piece of software to be an interesting case study in mass
hysteria.
>
> --
> Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
> weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
> - The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
> |eng.ox.ac.uk
--
"Think outside the box."
-John Travis
http://www.freebsd.org/
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:15:14 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"Mathias Grimmberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [some previous poster should get a real news reader that doesn't drop
> attributions, and retaining references would be nice too...]
> > > > Sometimes ago someone mentioned ADS as an NTFS exploit, but I've
found
> > > > absolutely no information about this.
>
> There has been a virus using them to hide itself but I don't think it
> ever appeared in the wild. And the webserver exploits. See (NT) Bugtraq.
Streams, yes, I've heard about it.
Frankly, I'm sure that most anti virus makers would be delighted because of
it, the virus actually packs itself in a nice little package that you can
nuke without harming the actual file data.
I'm no interested in NT bugs at the moment, but in NTFS bugs & exploits.
> > > ADS?
> >
> > Alternative Data Streams
> >
> > appear in the form of:
> >
> > filename:ADS
> > ":" is the ADS delimitor.
> >
> > Possible documentation you would like is Linux Kernal mailing list,
search
> > for NTFS streams.
> > (Check out Linus' idea about "Everything, but I mean *everything*, is a
> > file", btw.)
>
> Or just use MS's dokumentation of it, available on MSDN.
>
> [snip examples about image.jpg:Thumbnail and foo.doc:Formatting]
>
> > I'm sure you can see why this is a good feature.
>
> It also depends on some central registry allocating the names. Not quite
> a scaleable setup. But it may work if MS would choose to do that work.
Central registry? You mean MFT? That is how NTFS *works*, it's pretty
scalable by what I've seen.
My *main* complaint about this is that there are *no* userlands builtin
tools to handle streams.
> [snip]
>
> > Unfortantely, while NTFS itself supported this from the beginning, and
the
> > APIs are capable of reading & writing from ADS, and there are ways to
> > read/write it from CLI, there is absolutely no:
> >
> > A> Awareness for this feature.
>
> Which lead to security holes in webservers some time ago, AFAIK bot MS's
> and others.
You mean the ::$DATA bug in IIS?
Or do you mean something else?
> > B> ADS-aware NT/2K 's standards tools. Neither CLI nor Explorer will let
you
> > know whatever a file has ADS, how many of those, and how much the file's
> > size is (they only count unnamed stream, not ADS).
>
> Which basically means the feature is useless. I'm shure that most of the
> third party "quota tools" for NT 4 didn't know about ADS either. Lots of
> potential for abuse...
Yes, there was a lot of potential for abuse there, but the thing is that
the quota tools makers were aware of the streams, they just didn't have
requests to make this into the qouta (see A).
2000's builtin quotas count for streams, btw.
> Hehehe, does the quota stuff in NT 5 actually know about ADS?
Yep.
> > C> No way to delete/rename ADS with any of NT/2K standard tools
>
> Oh yes, give me a feature but not the tools to manage it. :-)
Yep, I *hate* this thing.
It's useful, very much so, but without tools to do it...
> > The APIs exist, and it would be a trivial matter to anyone who knows
even
> > little programming to build a tool that would allow both B & C, it's not
> > part of NT/2K itself.
>
> Hmm. AFAIK the only way to get information about the ADS of a file up to
> NT 4 was some obscure backup API. Unless that changed with NT 5 (and a
> cursory scan of MSDN seems to suggest it didn't) B is not really
> possible. See the documentation of the API for why not (in short:
> reading the whole damn file just to find out what ADS it may have is not
> an option in any (even semi-) reasonable scenario).
You are talking about the BackUpRead(), don't you?
There is another way, which is, of course, by far less known.
NtQueryInformationFile()
I can post some source code on how to enumerate streams in NTFS if you like,
not mine, alas.
> > problem with ADS is that you can't:
> >
> > A> Send a file via FTP with ADS (I'm not sure how much this is a true
> > limitation, because you probably can do send file.txt:ads and have it
work
> > if it's NTFS - to - NTFS trasfer, didn't check it, though).
> > B> Attach a file with Email/News.
> > C> Move it to non-NTFS HDs. (I *think* that HPS+ might have the same
> > feature, but I'm not so sure about it.)
>
> And that in the end means the feature is totally useless. Unless you
> would want to completely migrate to NTFS and stop communicating with the
> outside world. BTW, are ADS supported over SMB if the server happens to
> use NTFS?
No idea.
I know that there are several other FS that are going to adapt this feature,
though.
AFAIK, it might get into Linux by 2.5 or 2.6
> There is also a funny comment about support for ADS in future FSs,
> future NT versions and future support for OLE 2 structured storage
> somewhere in the MSDN stuff.
What funny comment?
------------------------------
From: [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 17:22:43 GMT
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 03:56:20 GMT, "Kyle Jacobs"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Great post Kyle and from what you have written, it is obvious that you
have seen Linux in action.
Trying Linux is the absolute best advertisement for NOT using Linux
there can be.
Again I am speaking mostly of desktop users. From what I have seen in
my user group the majority of newbies buy the commercial distributions
at the local Computer store because it is easier than down loading and
so forth.
This gets them even more upset when they can't make their systems look
like the pictures on the box or when they discover Mandrake's
deceptive advertising about support and then when you open the box you
discover it is 2 incidents via Email and covers only installation, not
configuration.
At this point assuming they haven't trashed their hard drive because
most people don't even have a clue about what an operating system
really is and think it's just another program (ie:can I run Windows
and Linux at the same time type questions), they will feel ripped off
for paying $30.00 for something that is inferior to what they already
have.
Yes trying Linux is all that it takes to spawn another Windows
advocate, who most likely never even thought of advocating an
operating system before.
I won't even go into what happens when a Mac user tries Linux.
>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.
>
>> 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.
>
>See above.
>
>> 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 get grossly disappointed when the only advice you can dole out is
>"read the howto".
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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...
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
>> You have to have a wide track to park that wide butt in
>> to make it home to post this wide bulletins.
>
>Cute...
>
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:24:10 GMT
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 03:14:29 GMT, Martin Eden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>> Debian is BSD based
>
>Where on earth did you come up with that?
He made it up just like he makes up everything he says.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:25:52 GMT
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:50:16 GMT, "Tom Wilson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The cost was just a bit too high for the benefits. If they had kept the
>costs down, they'd have had a better chance. I actually liked the
>archetecture. Very efficient.
This is true.
They were way ahead of their time but they got overly greedy.
>
>
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:33:26 -0500
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:50:06 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Here's the way I read your post.
>
>I would like Linux, except for the fact that Windows has predatorally
>maintained an application barrier preventing commercial development of
>software on alternative platforms.
Actually, it's more like:
I do like Linux a lot, but Windows has predatorally maintained an
application barrier preventing commercial development of software on
alternative platforms, which pisses me off. Until that barrier is
broken, Linux will not make a dent in the desktop world.
------------------------------
From: Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:35:34 -0500
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:53:35 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * Office applications - I've tried StarOffice, I've tried Applixware,
>> and I've tried a couple of other smaller offerings, but none of them
>> seem to match up with office applications for Windows. MS Office is
>> SLOW, but StarOffice is slower
>
>What computer are you running on? I find StarOffice workable on a
>P133/72M.
It's a P200, and when I tried it I had 32Mb. I now have 64Mb so I may
give it another try.
I also have done absolutely nothing with regard to kernel tuning and
disk tuning (too many projects, not enough time!), so doing that might
speed things up a bit.
------------------------------
From: Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:28:59 -0500
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:37:32 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:59:19 -0500, Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:20:49 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>> I've known Windows users to disagree on this point. Bear in
>>> mind that StarOffice is more sluggish under Win32 than it is
>>> being sent across a LAN via X.
>>
>>I haven't tried the win version, but the X version seemed very slow
>>and bloated (not quite as bloated as MS office, but still!)
>
> ...no more so than any other application that follows the
> 'everything and a bag of chips in a single application'.
Yeah, I have a big problem with that philosophy, I've always been of
the opinion that a piece of software should do one specific thing, and
do it well. The first piece of bloatware I saw for Linux/unix was
Netscape, which in my opinion should be purely a web browser, without
all the other bells and whistles.
I don't mind suites of applications as long as each application in the
suite can be used independantly of the rest.
>>To be honest, I haven't used them enough to compare functionality, I'm
>>not a big word-processor user. Star Office seemed as functional as MS
>
> ...strange that you would prefer the proverbial Elephant gun then?
As I said, speed was the main issue. MS Office runs with quite
reasonable performance on a 32Mb Windows system. Star Office did not
run well at all in a 32Mb Linux system.
In a nutshell, my requirement is:
A word processor application which runs well, doesn't hog the system,
and can handle MS Office files (unfortunately I don't have a choice
there)
A spreadsheet application with the same requirements
An easy-to-use-for-the-non-accountant accounting package
Until then, my Linux machine will be a network server, news server,
firewall, development area and general plaything, but it won't be on
my desktop.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:45:01 GMT
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:46:30 +0500, "Gary Hallock"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You really can't read, can you. He had to wait days for the CD to come.
>In the meantime, he had Linux running in minutes. That hour was not
>waiting for Earthlink to find someone who knows about Linux. He waited
>an hour for the request for a new account to be processed.
You can't read.
He doesn't need the CD to install under Windows either he could have
called them as well, but he has that CHOICE now doesn't he.
And when the CD arrives he can just update anyway.
Under Linux what CHOICE does he have?
Wait on the phone and hope he gets a person sympathetic to the Linux
cause.
Funny a Linvocate unable to see choice.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:46:02 GMT
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:17:13 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Maybe I missed the original point or premise of this whole argument,
>but we had a few earthlink accounts at work and all I did in Windows
>95/98/NT/2000 was add a new dial-up connection, type in my user name
>and password and everything worked. I didn't have to fill in any
>IPs, DNS addresses, ppp scripts, anything. It all used MS-CHAP or
>CHAP for authentication automatically. No rebooting required on
>any of the aforementioned OSes. This is easier than Linux. Yes,
>Linux is more difficult than Windows.
Yep.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:47:12 GMT
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:57:00 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>You were full of shit, as usual. :-P
At least I took a crack at it.
What did you do?
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: The *BEST* advertising!
Date: 23 Jan 2001 17:52:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I won't even go into what happens when a Mac user tries Linux.
Why on earth not?
I was a die-hard mac-head (having come from the Amiga school) when I first
tried linux. The first linux I ever installed was MKLinux DR2. It was
admittedly difficult to understand, having previous unix experience only
on a very large scale; It took me most of a day to install it. In those
days (especially with MKlinux) installation was a pain for EVERYONE; you
had to partition an unused drive by hand and then lay a filesystem down
the LONG way (byte checks with an uber-old A/UX filesystem utility that
only worked from the boot prom). THEN you had to lay the actual operating
system by hand by unpacking an enormous tarball and moving everything to
where it belonged manually.
But it worked, and it worked very well. Because I applied "thinking" to
the "problem" of linux, I "solved" it early on, and "understanding" was
the result. I never used MacOS again (I believe 7.5.1 had just come out).
Linux is much easier these days. It hardly takes any brainpower at all.
Why you cant make it go is beyond me, claire. I used to postulate that
if you could TYPE, you could understand linux. I'm going to have to revise
that postulate.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: 23 Jan 2001 17:55:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Martin Eden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>> Debian is BSD based
> Where on earth did you come up with that?
> BSD is a family of Operating Systems which does not include Debian. I am
> sure all the people who have worked so hard to develop Debian from
> scratch will enjoy hearing that their product is a knockoff of something
> else.
They know it is, idiot. Theres a reason that people who know what theyre
doing always say "wow, debian is so close to FreeBSD I can almost smell it!"
That reason is because its PURPOSELY close, dipshit.
> It's not "based on" BSD any more than Solaris is "based on" BSD.
You meant SunOS. And dont forget /usr/ucb, you diminutive yogurthead.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:56:00 GMT
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 03:30:31 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>You do realize that some people actually *like* the term Penguinista,
>don't you, Claire/Steve?
I don't mean it to be a derogatory term, just a term.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
