Linux-Advocacy Digest #746, Volume #31 Fri, 26 Jan 01 16:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Does Code Decay (Donn Miller)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Harlan Grove)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 (John Travis)
All this Whistler stuff. ("Martigan")
Re: Getting first W2K server (Craig Kelley)
Re: Poor Linux (Craig Kelley)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Bill Unruh)
Re: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again! (Craig Kelley)
Re: C2 [ was Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ] (Shane Phelps)
Run for the hills! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others (Shane Phelps)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Craig Kelley)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Whistler, the greatest jump forward in the evolution of computing... (John
Travis)
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:16:31 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Yes and no. Code itself doesn't decay, but it's associations can.
Well, the biggest thing is if the code in question is C or C++. Code
that is really old may not compile on C99 compliant compilers, for
example. Back in the old days, it was (AFAIK) common to declare main as
either main(){/*implicit int*/} or void main(){}. Also, remember
function declarations back in the old days? Modern C compilers may not
even compile them, and C++ compilers will NOT compile "classic style"
(K&R) functions.
It could get pretty messy with old C code that omitted the "int" type,
because there was an "implicit int" rule back then where a variable was
automatically assumed to be an int when no type specifier was used.
Assuming you had a managerie of K&R function declarations with lots of
implicit ints, it could get ugly.
Also, I've had problems with older C++ code compiling on recent versions
of g++, because g++ was not strict enough when gcc 2.7.* was
commonplace. C++ standards evolve quite rapidly enough that 10 year-old
C++ code could be a bear to bring up to date. Or, try converting 10+
yeard old C code to C++.
So yes, in a sense, code does decay, but probably not as rapidly as MS
is claiming. C/C++ code is like an automobile. If you don't keep it
maintained and up-to-date, it becomes harder to maintain later on in its
life, and could very well end up in the junkyard.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Harlan Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:12:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>This may offer OS alternatives like Linux a huge toe in the desktop
>door. With more and more homes being networked and having multiple PCs,
>how many home and small business users are going to be forced to pay up
>and stop using the "One CD fits all" approach they use today?
Don't believe in copyright, do you? The license is pretty clear.Don't
blame Microsoft for enforcing their legal rights. If you don't like it,
don't use it. If you oppose copyrights in general, work for changes in
the law.
>In my own case.....I would have to upgrade 7 home PCs every year for
>both Windows and MS Office.....to the tune of lots of dosh per annum.
>As it is, I now have 3 of those systems on Linux...and quite happily.
So you admit you're a software pirate?
>But some of my family members are reluctant to give up Windows. I may
>have to suggest to them that they pay for it in future....as I will
>only be paying for Linux software from 2001 onward.
Buy one copy for one PC and make them share.
>It is intersting that the US produced Windows......the country with
>one-party (two faction) politics has also given us no choice on the
>desktop. While politically diverse Europe with multi-party,
>proportional systems as the politcal norm, has given us Open Software
>and Linux....
Nothing like a little gratuitous anti-Americanism.
A little history and geography. Unix was invented where? System V and
BSD where? FreeBSD where? X where? The Free Software Foundation began
and is based where? GNU software pre-linux wasn't open source? Emacs
wasn't the first widely used open source software? And Europe being
such a hotbed of software creativity, Linus Torvalds lives where?
Nice try. It's a global phenomenon. It's also true that Siemens and
Groupe Bull (and others - are there others?) simply lacked the vision
and drive (and opportunities) Microsoft had. While Microsoft was
rolling out Windows for good or ill, those clever Europeans were
perfecting Videotex. Such genius.
>Sort of the illusion of freedom (US politics) vs the reality of freedom
>(European politics - outside Britain).
>
>There is an underlying cultural thing operating here somewhere......
Absolutely true. It's how we define 'freedom'. For those in the US of
Libertarian bent, Microsoft can do what it wants to within certain
legal bounds (which it's overstepped, IMO). No one forces you or anyone
else to use it (we can also argue about 'forces' in the context of what
one must use at work - no one forces you to work for a given employer).
Finally, as for US politics, better bland/boring politics and a diverse
and vibrant society than the reverse.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:14:11 GMT
And on Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:02:27 +0100, "ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke
unto us:
:I heard that they want to put the cd-burner into the os. It's about time
:they do something about that. I had it with shoving out money for stupid
:burner-software upgrades.
That is just stupid. I suppose they should build autocad in there too?
Don't use Adaptec and your problem is pretty much solved. Nero and
Goldenhawk both offer free updates throughout a version line. Adaptec
does the same, but somehow they don't last as long. Not to mention that
the former are both better products.
:What I heard too ist that they want to charge money for IE6 (don't have a
:link). It makes almost sense to charge money for it as there is no more
:competition (ns beeing almost as dead as a dodo and opera having 0% of the
:market).
I haven't heard this. And how the shit is this a good thing? Opera is
still a better browser (5.02 now) in almost every regard. And it will
probably still be in comparison to IE6 which will undoubtedly be utterly
non standards-compliant. As soon as they started charging for it everyone
would use something else anyway.
jt
________________________________________
Alternative Computing Solutions...
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: "Martigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: All this Whistler stuff.
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:52:21 GMT
News articles around are claming this thing to be the greatest invention
around. What I want know is if it is so great, an you can do so many things
with it, why can't you customize it, i.e. the kernel? Cuz M$ don't want you
to know! Plus is it is so great then why will there be a SR-1 about four
months after it's release?
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Getting first W2K server
Date: 26 Jan 2001 12:54:32 -0700
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : So it wasn't DDoS as the Windows people have been saying?
>
> : Hmm, the last time I checked, having your website down for 24 hours is
> : a *major* security hole. Especially since windowsupdate was down, as
> : were all the service packs, people's e-mail and such.
>
> Having a website down is not a security hole at all, but it might
> be the *result* of a security hole (someone breaks in and then
> disables your system.) In fact, just the opposite - each
> network service you disable increases security, until you get
> the degenerate case where nothing works on the network, and then
> you are secure (and are ready to try for a C2 certification).
Having your website down *is* a security hole, for all your customers
that need to update their software. It's even worse than a security
hole that only affects the company itself, because you're putting
those that use your goods at risk.
Microsoft published a SMB patch to Windows 98-Me this week -- who
knows how many were affected because they couldn't run windows update
for that period of time.
Now Microsoft wants to publish applications over the internet (.NET);
wouldn't this be nice on the day before your paper is due?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: 26 Jan 2001 13:04:25 -0700
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then explain why the following program gets 99% CPU usage, and
> then brings the system to a crawl (so that when I type the
> kill command to get rid of it it takes a few minutes to
> respond, and pay attention to my keystrokes.) I'd really like
> to know if this is something settable in the scheduler that I
> can fix. (Now, keep in mind that the program has to be left
> running for several hours before it will start affecting the
> performance that badly. The longer it is running, the more
> CPU time gets assigned to it.)
>
> /* Program to suck 99% of the CPU time: */
> int main( int c, argv **v)
> {
> int x = 0x0000ffff;
>
> while(x) /* X is always nonzero, but making it a variable
> * like this prevents the compiler from noticing
> * that I'm deliberately building an infinite loop,
> * so it doesn't complain to me.
> */
> {
> x = ~x; /* Silly statement so the loop actually
> * does something and the compiler doesn't
> * try to optimize the loop out of existance.
> */
> }
> return 0;
> }
>
> Compile and run the above program, then wait a few hours.
First of all, there's a bug :
1c1
< int main( int c, argv **v)
---
> int main( int c, char **v)
Secondly, how long to we have to run it to notice? I can see that my
VMWare isn't quite as quick to respond, but it can still play
Quicktime movies just fine. I'm using RedHat 7 with kernel-2.4.0, in
case you're wondering.
USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND
ink 19364 88.2 0.1 1304 304 pts/9 R 11:59 1:22 ./suck_time
^^^^
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 26 Jan 2001 20:06:13 GMT
In <94si7f$7nq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Harlan Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
]In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
] Steve Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
]...
]>This may offer OS alternatives like Linux a huge toe in the desktop
]>door. With more and more homes being networked and having multiple PCs,
]>how many home and small business users are going to be forced to pay up
]>and stop using the "One CD fits all" approach they use today?
]Don't believe in copyright, do you? The license is pretty clear.Don't
]blame Microsoft for enforcing their legal rights. If you don't like it,
]don't use it. If you oppose copyrights in general, work for changes in
]the law.
And what do you do when the lawmakers are corrupt? Much of the copyright
policy is being dictated by large corporations with the money to spend
on political activity.
Copyright was originally to protect the maker for the purpose of
encouraging the creation of products. There is not evidence that it
serves that purpose anymore in say software. The free software movement
shows that much software is being created where the makers explicitly
give up their control of copying. At present much copyright law is
simply corporations demanding monopoly powers from supine governments.
In the face of that civil disobedience is at least as effective as "work
for changes" is.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again!
Date: 26 Jan 2001 13:07:46 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On 25 Jan 2001 21:55:49 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >He wants to know the reason why rasterman wrote the Elightenment
> >window manager in such a way that the user is required to edit a text
> >file in order to add an item to to the root menu (why doesn't he ask
> >rasterman?). It's a straw-man; he knows that neither GNOME nor KDE
> >require this (just like his pseudo-problem with the nameless CD player
> >he used). He also has major problems with his Soundblaster Live, even
> >though the card has been in the kernel for years.
>
> 1. Kind of proves my point about inconsistencies in Linux applications
> now doesn't it.
Not any more so than running Litestep under NT does...
> BTW tell me how you re-order the menues in kde or make a shortcut/link
> and put it on the desktop, or in another menu.
> I can drag them around in Windows. Real easy.
Under GNOME 1.2:
To make a desktop shortcut, drag the menu item to your desktop.
To re-order the menu items, right-click on the menu button and select
"Edit Menus".
> 2. SBLive FULLY SUPPORTED under Linux?
> Sorry. Maybe in another year or so.
Strange, mine works just fine.
> >He asks these questions over and over and over.
>
> I didn't ask the question, someone else did.
You do, though.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2 [ was Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ]
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:09:59 +1100
I love it when "Jan" and "Conrad" play tag-team :-)
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.
>
I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the update. URL please?
Oh, don't bother about the URL - I see it down the bottom
> >
> > 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.
Que? Red *is* networked. Orange is standalone. Are you talking about NT4 Server?
Is there really such a thing as a "personal" OS? Did you mean workstation?
>
> >
> > 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.
>
Certification would have to take a while. Sun still have Trusted Solaris 8
jumping through the certification hoops as well (C2 + B1).
> >
> > 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
The earlier C2 stuff I saw around the time of the NT 3.5 certification
and much of the later material indicated that it's the *system*, not the
OS or hardware which is certified. For example, is a dual-boot PC
(Linux and NT 4) C2?
I guess they were reading more into C2 than it really covers.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Run for the hills!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:17:08 +0000
It's the end of civilisation as we know it!
An OS that never crashes!
A desktop that nobody wants to use!
GASP!
We're getting our first... <choke> Linux... <eek> box... <puke> at work.
And since I'm the one running Linux at home, guess who gets to install it?
8)
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:19:42 +1100
I love it when "Jan" and "Conrad" play tag-team :-)
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.
>
I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the update. URL please?
Don't bother about the URL - I see it down the bottom.
> >
> > 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.
Que? Red *is* networked. Orange is standalone. Are you talking about NT4 Server?
>
> >
> > 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?)
I didn't read the whole 160-odd pages, but it looks like you're right.
Orange book C2 is purely access control and logging for the OS on a standalone
system. Red book adds networking.
>
> 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
The earlier C2 stuff I saw around the time of the NT 3.5 certification
and much of the later material indicated that it's the *system*, not the
OS which is certified. For example, is a dual-boot PC (Linux and NT 4) C2?
If only *you* have the NT partition's Administrator password and *I* have
the Linux root password I can reboot the system and read data and/or
alter any log files.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 26 Jan 2001 13:23:11 -0700
Steve Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> G'day
>
> I've been following developments closely on this.
>
> It appears that sometime this year all new Microsot software will need
> to be registered....or it will cease to function.
>
> This may offer OS alternatives like Linux a huge toe in the desktop
> door. With more and more homes being networked and having multiple PCs,
> how many home and small business users are going to be forced to pay up
> and stop using the "One CD fits all" approach they use today?
>
> In my own case.....I would have to upgrade 7 home PCs every year for
> both Windows and MS Office.....to the tune of lots of dosh per annum. As
> it is, I now have 3 of those systems on Linux...and quite happily.
>
> But some of my family members are reluctant to give up Windows. I may
> have to suggest to them that they pay for it in future....as I will only
> be paying for Linux software from 2001 onward.
I'm with you up until here.
> It is intersting that the US produced Windows......the country with
> one-party (two faction) politics has also given us no choice on the
> desktop. While politically diverse Europe with multi-party, proportional
> systems as the politcal norm, has given us Open Software and Linux....
>
> Sort of the illusion of freedom (US politics) vs the reality of freedom
> (European politics - outside Britain).
>
> There is an underlying cultural thing operating here somewhere...... :-)
I hope you're joking. There are probably more Americans working with
Linux and BSD than the rest of the world combined. Look at the FSF
and think about where the 'B' in BSD comes from.
Also, it isn't all rosy in Europe. Look at all the hoopla in France
about Yahoo! auctions and English websites (not to mention their
reluctance to even offer the internet because they had a
state-monopoly up until the E-deluge flooded them). Look at telco
practices in general accross Europe, the ridiculous connect rates and
taxes. Look at the corporate welfare tax on computer equipment in
Germany (including the "music filter" to "protect" artists). Look at
the Swedish attacks on flashback.
Certain countries (Norway comes to mind) are very friendly towards
choice and freedom, but not 'Europe' in general.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:22:37 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> With all due respect, putting a CD-burner INTO the kernal is about the
> dumbest idea I've ever heard of...
Why the HELL not? Why the f*** can't the kernel write CD's? They already
have support for NTFS & FAT, why can't the semantics of generating an
ISO13346 file system be integrated as well? Why can't you select "format
CD" from the "My Computer" dialog? God forbid Adaptec should have to pay
for all those idiotic revisions of DirectCD that f***ed the Windows OS (even
NT & 2000) with a little product obsolescence?
It's not as if ISO13346 is a proprietary standard....
God forbid Kulkis, you should be FOR anything that makes sense.
------------------------------
From: John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler, the greatest jump forward in the evolution of computing...
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:12:17 GMT
And on Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:06:39 GMT, "bAckline"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke unto us:
:Microsoft Windows 2001, code-name whistler, said to be the
:greatest jump forward in the evolution of computing and
:information technology, since the advent of the
:drop-shadowed mouse cursor. Windows 2001 will be easier
:to use, faster, more reliable, more advanced and better
:looking than any other computing platform currently available
:to man.
:
:http://www.geek-ware.co.uk/article.pl?sid=00/11/10/2134203
:
:
:PROUD to be GEEK
:http://www.geek-ware.co.uk
LOL! At first I thought you were serious. Then I saw some hilarious
lines like "While all the other vendors are frankly pissing around
providing unified I/O models, advance kernel scheduling,memory management,
session management, user interface, clustering technologies, standards
compliance, performance and security enhancements, windows is advancing in
the growth areas..." and "We have also had reports of the system being
super-stable, one report boasts an impressive uptime of 36 hours, for a
beta system, this is really quite amazing. Linux 2.4 alpha and beta tests
can't boast up-times of much more than a month or so." But my favorite is
still "With all these features, it is hard to believe the slim price tags
associated with microsoft products." :-)
jt
________________________________________
Alternative Computing Solutions...
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:32:25 +0000
J Sloan wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I think Linux was considered abolutely secure by stupid people.
>
> No, you are 100% wrong here.
>
> Stupid people have not heard of any OS besides windows.
>
> jjs
I am not 100% wrong. Linux is not absolutely secure. It is more secure
than windows, but what does that mean?
you have to be pretty damn braindead to think any system is secure,
unless it is locked underground with no external network or power
connection.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
