Linux-Advocacy Digest #739, Volume #31 Fri, 26 Jan 01 01:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Does Code Decay ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Whistler predictions... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft is fired. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft is fired. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:12:35 -0500
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:34:00 -0500
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> >>
> >> Bennetts family wrote:
> >> > Unix could stay pretty stagnant for a very long time, with only bugfixes
> >> > and driver updates/additions) and kick the crap out of Windows for a very
> >> > long time. Windows is a lousy design, that needs to keep in touch with 20
> >> > year old bodge fixes (FAT, etc). Unix did things a much better way right
> >> > from the start. I predict that in 20 years time, Windows will still be on
> >> > a FAT derived FS, and suffering miserably from it.
> >> >
> >> I think in 20 years Wintendo(tm) will be recognized as the single one
> >> biggest errors in computing history.
> >
> >Kind of like the nuclear-fission handgrenade, but without the benefits.
>
> Pedant point: I was given to understand that the critical mass of
> plutonium is a few pounds, and needed to be physically separate
> from itself (i.e., in several pieces which will ultimately be jammed
> together by a special high explosive). This does not appear to be
> a form factor consistent with a hand-held, egg-shaped device with
> a pullable pin. Maybe a backpack, or a small trailer.
2 1/2 pounds of conventional explosive (much less dense material than Pu)
fits in the hand with ease.
a couple pounds of Pu much smaller than a baseball.
Add a 100 gram (.2 pound) piece of conventional explosive, and there
you go :-)
>
> I could be wrong, of course; the only grenades I've seen have been
> dummies of the sort that one might see on complaint department
> desks (the ones conspicuously labled "Take a Number"; a '1' tag
> is attached to the pull-pin).
That's the old 1940's era cast-iron "pineable" grenade. Most of the
weight was in the metal fragmentation.
The modern (post Korean-war) grenade is round and smooth, shaped
like a baseball. The inside is acid etched or scored so that it
fragments into lots and lots of little triangular pieces of metal.
> :-)
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- no, I don't want to find out the hard way.
> EAC code #191 0d:08h:17m actually running Linux.
> This is the best part of the message.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 05:20:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Your rant rather effectively illustrates just why the
> comparison is the proverbial "apples to oranges" and
> infact doesn't demonstrate anything meaningful.
>
> If I want to run an Oracle instance, I don't need to worry about
> whether or not I am running Linux kernel 2.4. The same is true
> for USB support, Firewire support, journaled filesystems or
> 3D acceleration in current top end gaming cards.
>
> There is no built-in-obsolescence with the linux kernel that
> might require one to install NT5 just to get USB support.
>
> It has not been demonstrated that anyone should NEED to perform
> a kernel upgrade, or even that it is necessarily as difficult
> as might be implied by a site that does CPU fan reviews.
>
Clearly! Software written to run on Linux in 1994 thru today
will still run on a 2.4 kernel.
Yet, you can't run software written for Windows 3.11 on a W2k
machine with a 100% chance of sucess!
There is an ENORMOUS difference between the upward compatibility
of Windows and Linux.
Microsoft and Windows are merely marketing tools to FORCE people
to upgrade all of their software with each OS upgrade.
Microsoft is so bloated they even force people to upgrade
their PC's.
The PC upgrade when running Linux happens at half the rate
it does for Windows or less. I have a pentium box which
has gone 3 full versions of Linux and the machine still
hasn't become obsolete due to performance issues.
Linux is a much leaner and cost effective tool than Windows.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 05:23:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:30:15 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Poor flatfish, he is frantic with rage and confusion over the
>>fact that Linux is alive and well, and microsoft has Linux as
>>it's biggest threat -
>
>Linux isn't a threat to anything I need software for so actually I
>could care less what Linux does to Microsoft and in fact I could save
>a fortune in applications cost's if Linux was able to do even 1/10th
>of what I can easily do with Windows and Windows applications.
>
Then why do you post here day and night badmouthing Linux.
If what you say is TRUE then why is Linux the fastest growing
OS since the invention of the computer?
>>Surely, if the bizzare caricature painted by flatfish, and other
>>wintrolls were true, none of us would have ever heard of Linux,
>>much less be using it.
>
>I don't think any Windows user cares what you run on your machine.
>Use the tools that work for you.
>
>
Obviously YOU care or you wouldn't be here posting 20 hours
a day.
>
>
>>jjs
>
>Flatfish
>Why do they call it a flatfish?
>Remove the ++++ to reply.
I shudder to think what it would have to take
to just Remove period...
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 05:25:22 GMT
In article <3a70dfb7$0$11948$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>>
>> > But it can't even reach C2 level of security...
>>
>> Actually there is work going on right now in that regard,
>> because government wants to make use of the power
>> of Linux, rather than having to choose between expensive
>> traditional RISC Unix solutions, or flaky pc server solutiuons.
>
>And W2K is being evaluted as we speak.
>
>>
>> > NT is more "highly securable" the NSA says...
>>
>> What a joke - nt can be configured on certain hardware
>> to get a nominal security rating, but if you install a network
>> card, or even a floppy, your security rating goes right out
>> the window. Not a very useful pc, huh?
>
>Wrong, completely and utterly wrong.
>NT4 sp6a certified WITH networking and floppy.
>http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html
>
>
>
All I have to say is you ***MUST BE LIVING IN A MOON CRATER FACE DOWN ***
to have missed the I-LOVE-YOU virus last year!
Or how about the theft of source code from Microsoft corporate HQ?
Truely, YOU people NEVER LEARN.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 05:26:17 GMT
In article <3a70dfcf$0$11957$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
>"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>> >
>> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:94q17o$13p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> > > > http://betanews.efront.com/article.php3?sid=980449212
>> > >
>> > > > Kaspersky Lab's is now reporting that the Linux-based virus 'Ramen'
>is
>> > now
>> > > > "in the wild." The firm sent word around the net today that several
>Web
>> > > > sites have now been defaced by the malicious code, enough to up its
>> > status
>> > > > to "in the wild". Places affected by the bug include NASA, Texas
>A&M,
>> > and
>> > > > Supermicro. As of right now, the worm only seems to be affecting
>Redhat
>> > 6.2
>> > > > and 7.0 versions of Linux.
>> > > > Using three known breachable security exploits in the operating
>system,
>> > > > Ramen can penetrate the system and take over root access to execute
>its
>> > > > payload.
>> > >
>> > > > One executive at Russia-based Kaspersky Labs told reporters "The
>> > discovery
>> > > > of the Ramen worm 'in-the-wild' is a very significant moment in
>computer
>> > > > history. Previously considered as an absolutely secured operating
>> > system,
>> > > > Linux now has become yet another victim to computer malware."
>> > >
>> > > No, it was never considered 'absolutely secure' by ANYONE. It is
>highly
>> > > securable. Theres a difference.
>> >
>> > But it can't even reach C2 level of security... NT is more "highly
>> > securable" the NSA says...
>>
>>
>> NT 3.51 on a Compaq box with no network connection or floppy drive was C2.
>> I don't believe NT 4 or 5 were ever C2 certified in *any* configuration
>> but I may be wrong.
>
>You are wrong. NT4 was C2 certified with both a floppy and network
>connection.
>
>>
>> http://www.swynk.com/friends/sasha/tocs.asp
>> has information on how to configure NT 4 to C2 level, but I don't believe
>> MS has aver had a system certified to Orange Book C2, let alone Red Book.
>
>NT4 has been certified at C2 level. No personal OS has ever made Red.
>
>>
>> NT's use of ACLs and fascist logging (when enabled) make it potentially
>> quite secure. Please don't muddy the waters by claiming *all* NT is C2.
>> NT 4 and 5 are claimed to be substantially different from NT 3.51.
>
>True, NT5 has not been certified, yet. NT4 with networking has.
>
>>
>> Unless the situation has changed substantially, C2 certification is issued
>> to a system configuration (hardware + software), not an OS. Even
>installing
>> a SCSI hard disk in addition to the IDE disk a system is certified with
>> will invalidate the original certification.
>
>The OS is certified, not the hardware, however the hardware is documented.
>You'll note than when describing the certification and process, hardware is
>not part of the process. C2 is not about hardware. Changing hard drive type
>will not invalidate this configuration (think about it eh? If I ghost from a
>SCSI to IDE drive - how is this less secure?)
>
>SO, read and remember - certification is for the OS, NOT the hardware.
>
>http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html
>
>
>
What good is this if a 12 year old can knock down 1/2 of the
Worlds Windows boxes with a simple VB script in an attachment
on an E-mail?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 23:51:56 -0600
You're a real idiot Charlie.
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> It will be a year after the release before any serious sales
> >> are made on the OS.
>
> GEE! NT was this way. W2k IS this way...
> Why would Microsoft's attempt at a 64 bit operating system
> be any different then their 32 bit entrants?
Win2k was an 80% rewrite, while Whistler is about 10-15% new code. Big
difference.
As for 64 bit, if there was a differnet 64 bit version of windows out, they
might run that. But there's not.
> >> Corporations will repel from the idea of having their installed
> >> base of software show up on Microsoft corporate registers
> >> for the viewing of *OTHERS* interested in prosecuting violators!
>
> There's no FUD to this. This is PER Microsoft.
No, it's not.
> When W2k came out, during the install process the
> license authentication phoned home to Microsoft.
No, it didn't. It never has. I challeng you to provide one shred of
evidence, hell even some substantial rumor would be nice. Just a single web
page (not authored by you).
> People found out about it and cried foul!
No.
> In Microsoft's new EULA they will simply state that
> *** YOU *** agree to this on a permanent basis.
No license agreement can take away your rights.
> That's .NET.
No, it's not.
> >> Home users will FEAR Whistler and it's ability to report
> >> to Microsoft about the applications found on your machine
> >> and they will resist upgrade.
> >>
> >> The home user based community will begin the FEEL the pain of
> >> having to pay the extremely HIGH price for this OS.
>
> They have doubled the price of every new OS they have come out
> with. NT full install was $189. W2k is $350.
Wrong on both accounts. NT and Win2k's price is about the same. In
actually, Win2k is cheaper for those upgrading from Win95. There was never
a Win9x upgrade price for NT, there is for Win2k.
Look here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/229656/105-2120705-1495116
NT4 Workstation - $248.99 - NT upgrade $130.99
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/281440/105-2120705-1495116
Win2000 Pro MSRP $319.99 - Street: $242.99 - Upgrade $169.99
NT4 is slight less here because it's discontinued. Before Win2k was
released, it was about the same price as Win2k is today.
> Whistler will be around $550, you watch and see.
Not.
> >> They will not have fixed their instability problems and will
> >> have mounted additional issues to be resolved as discovered
> >> by the dwindling user base.
>
> They claimed W2k fixed the instability of NT and
> also made the UPTIME unlimited.
Where is this claim printed, and who is the "they" you are referring to?
> Proof - studies already run have shown W2k to have
> just double the uptime of NT, but not unlimited.
Who said anything about unlimited. No OS has unlimited uptime. None.
> And W2k will still bluescreen under heavy traffic
> and lock up.
Not.
Go away charlie. Stop making shit up.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 23:54:33 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 25 Jan 2001
> >"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:94os4d$cp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It is clear you
> >> > have read a little but have not implemented any of it. Is it no
> >> > wonder that the teaching profession has such a bad name these days
> >> > especially in your neck of the woods. Try making your classes a bit
> >> > more practical. Then the teacher may learn something.
> >> >
> >> Perhaps you should look in some of the RFC's for T. Max Devlin. A
> >> hint, you'll probably find his name in some of the SNMP ones...
> >
> >Hmm.. which ones are those? The name Devlin doesn't appear at all in the
> >index of RFC's at: http://rfc.net/rfc-index.html
> >
> >Also, going through all the basic SNMP RFC's, his name doesn't appear
> >either.
>
> No, it won't be in any index; it was merely an acknowledgement. One of
> more than a dozen names of people who contributed in greater or lesser
> amounts. Mine was surely lesser, but it is there, in all of the SNMPv3
> standards. It is yet another startling reminder to my humility that
> nobody actually uses the SNMPv3 standards.
Which one? I went through every RFC listed that even mentions SNMP in the
index, and nowhere in any of them is the name Devlin.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is fired.
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 23:58:52 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94q1bm$13p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hmm.. according to the press release, it was a configuration error. Of
> > course they would all fail at once, since they were all updated at the
same
> > time. Being on different networks has nothing to do with it (you DO
realize
> > that DNS servers talk to each other and exchange their data, right?)
>
> It said that it was a router configuration error. It was not a DNS
configuration
> error. ROUTER configuration error. If you can knock out all of your DN
> servers with A ROUTER CONFIGURATION ERROR, youve set up your network
wrong.
My appolgies, I did read that a little too fast.
> Period. This is what I have been saying from the beginning.
No, you claim the DNS servers are on the same segment. The article says
that MS's border router was misconfigured. No matter how many subnets you
put your DNS servers, they all have to go through the border router unless
you physically seperate them in different geographical places, like one in
New York and one in Seattle and one in Dallas and one in Chicago.
> >> This is *very* basic networking knowledge. I'm not at all surprised
that
> >> no one at microsoft has any idea about how the rest of the world does
IP
> >> networking; as quick perusal of the average MCSE study book shows
beyond
> >> the shadow of a doubt that they have it all wrong.
>
> > I don't think you've even looked at an MCSE study book, since the
official
> > MS study books actually say the things you claim they don't.
>
> Get some experience, then argue.
You're the one making claims about having read the MCSE book and claiming
there is info in there which isn't.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is fired.
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 23:59:58 -0600
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Hmm.. according to the press release, it was a configuration error.
>
> Hmmm... They're having trouble again today. It sure takes MS a long time
to
> fix configuration errors.
Today's problem was a DDoS attack on their routers. Apparently, some script
kiddies wanted to make MS look even worse, never mind the fact that this is
the sort of attack that crippled companies like Yahoo and AT&T not too long
ago.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up?
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:04:54 -0600
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94qcc1$9qg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Yes, they do. But it seems that someone is DoSing all their DNS
servers, or
> : spoofing them, or something. This has always been a severe weakness of
the
> : internet, and has accounted for many problems. I remember a while back
> : someone hijacked Network Solutions DNS and was rerouting people to his
own
> : site that were trying to go to NSI.
>
> If Microsoft would show even the slightest inclination to use its
> dominant position on the desktop for good, and to start building
> robust support for *standard-compliant* IPv6 and IPSec into its
> software, it could make a BIG contribution to solving this and many of
> today's other Internet security problems.
Are you not aware that IPSec is built into Win2k?
Also, MS provides complete source to it's IPv6 implementation at:
>
>
> Joe
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up?
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:05:55 -0600
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94qcc1$9qg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Yes, they do. But it seems that someone is DoSing all their DNS
servers, or
> : spoofing them, or something. This has always been a severe weakness of
the
> : internet, and has accounted for many problems. I remember a while back
> : someone hijacked Network Solutions DNS and was rerouting people to his
own
> : site that were trying to go to NSI.
>
> If Microsoft would show even the slightest inclination to use its
> dominant position on the desktop for good, and to start building
> robust support for *standard-compliant* IPv6 and IPSec into its
> software, it could make a BIG contribution to solving this and many of
> today's other Internet security problems.
Are you not aware that IPSec is built into Win2k?
Also, MS provides complete source to it's IPv6 implementation at:
http://research.microsoft.com/msripv6/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up?
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:10:26 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94q1ke$13p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:94prgo$oe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:94p8ob$s02$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > MS's 4 DNS servers were at:
> >> >>
> >> >> > DNS4.cp.msft.net internet address 207.46.138.11
> >> >> > DNS5.cp.msft.net internet address 207.46.138.12
> >> >> > DNS6.cp.msft.net internet address 207.46.138.20
> >> >> > DNS7.cp.msft.net internet address 207.46.138.21
> >> >>
> >> >> > Now, think of what a netmask of 255.255.255.240 (or /28) does to
> > those
> >> > IP's.
> >> >>
> >> >> Tell me, do you even understand why its bad to put all your domain
> >> >> servers on the same subnet?
> >>
> >> > So in other words, you have no idea what a netmask of .240 or /28
does.
> >>
> >> I do, erik, because I have practical experience.
> >>
> >> You however, do not. You have alot of books though, im sure.
>
> > Then how come you're the one that insists they're on the same subnet,
> > despite no proof?
>
> Sweetheart, how do you think a bad router config *only* affected
microsofts
> DNS machines and *disabled all of them*?
So, their DNS servers are all behind the same border router. That's not the
same thing as them being on the same subnet.
They're not geographically seperated, and probably should be. But, a DDoS
against their DNS or against their primary routers to their servers is about
the same thing.
> This would mean that they would HAVE to be on the same /24. (well, almost
> have to be, there are a few ways to get around that, but then breaking
> the router wouldnt have crapped out all of them at the same time).
No, it means that upstream they're behind the same border router. That
could be a Class C or a Class B or a Class A for that matter.
Hint: Much of the traffic for the east coast goes through a few central
routers. DDoSing those routers would cut off access to the entire west
coast from the mountains on over.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again!
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:13:14 -0600
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94qetq$13mm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Lloyd Llewellyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Microsoft has proved its superior INNOVATION skills once again by coming
out
> : with a new, highly secret feature in Whistler!
>
> : This new exotic feature is a kind of "skin" or "theme" system that can
change
> : the look and feel of the entire interface of the operating system! Oh
my god,
> : that is so revolutionary! I can barely comprehend it! I'll bet those
Linsux
> : Lusers will be drooling over this! They will have to admit defeat now!
>
> Any bets on how long before some clueless moron who thinks MS invents
> everything first comes in here trying to claim Gnome or KDE are copying
> Whistler's idea?
>
> I give it about 1 month. (Enough time for Whistler to actually start
> being used by people other than those interested in pre-beta testing.)
It didn't take long for some clueless moron to think that MS was pretending
that theming was ultra secret.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
