Linux-Advocacy Digest #748, Volume #31 Fri, 26 Jan 01 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: All this Whistler stuff. ("Martigan")
Re: Whistler predictions... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Craig Kelley)
Re: Microsoft is fired. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft is fired. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Craig Kelley)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Mig)
Re: Microsoft is fired. (.)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Craig Kelley)
Re: Run for the hills! (rich)
Re: Run for the hills! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up? (.)
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others (Mig)
Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (.)
Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up? (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 15:57:05 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94s82q$11i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "." <[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.
>
> You missed the point.
>
> Microsoft said that ONLY their DNS machines were effected, and only THOSE
FOUR.
They said no such thing.
> They also said that it was a router configuration error.
Yes.
> The scenereo in which this is a possibility is that all four of those
machines
> exist *only* on the *same* interface on the router, topologically. If
they
> all route through the same interface ALWAYS and ONLY (which is the case in
this
> scenereo, since otherwise the fix would have taken about a second and a
half),
> it wouldnt MATTER if they were switched out from eachother or not; they
would
> be behaving as if they were on the same subnet anyway.
Which is not the same thing as them being on the same subnet, as you
claimed.
> So the point is moot. Theyre on the same subnet.
We don't know that. We only know that their DNS servers are behind the same
router, somewhere.
> > 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.
>
> Thats what theyre saying TODAY. I wonder if either story was true?
It was quite easy to tell, traceroutes showed serious latency degradation
before it even got to MS's routers, A clear sign of DDoS.
> >> 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.
>
> IF the DOS story is true. I'm talking about the router configuration
story.
It's the same, either way.
> If someone had fucked the config of a border router, MUCH MORE would have
> broken than just 4 DNS machines.
That depends on if their DNS is on it's own direct connection to the net or
not.
> > 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.
>
> It seems that microsoft's DNS machines were the only things affected by
> this DOS.
You misunderstand my point. If someone wanted to, they could DDoS the
routers in the primary backbone. It would take quite a lot of systems of
course, but it could be done, cutton off everyone from either side.
------------------------------
From: "Martigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: All this Whistler stuff.
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:52:05 GMT
Ok. your right BUT the Registry can be accessed by any program you put
on your computer. If you uninstall it you have to hope everything is taken
out, and if it is not you have to do it. With the kernel I can fine tune it
to my exact system and use less space.
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:WZlc6.778$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Martigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Vzkc6.29755$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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?
>
> What exactly would you like to customize in the kernel? Nearly any
> parameter the kernel uses for tuning is accesible through the registry.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:02:04 -0600
"Mart van deWege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> <snip some stuff>
> >> 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.
> Erik,
>
> READ the bloody EULA for a change! It specifically states that
> ONLY a single backup is permitted. So if I like to be safe and
> want to have multiple redundant backups, I am in violation,
> although copyright law and precedent specifically grant me the
> right to make multiple backups.
Then the EULA doesn't take away your right to do so, even though it may
claim to, it doesn't.
> I am not even talking about the fact that my Win98 OEM EULA was
> tied to my HARDWARE. Technically I am now in violation of it,
> because I have upgraded my HD, and Win98 is no longer installed
> on the HARDWARE it was licensed on.
Generally MS means it's tied to the motherboard it's installed on, not the
hard drive.
> Now Microsoft should know they can't make these conditions stick
> in a court of law, so why do they keep putting them in?
They can certainly make the OEM restrictions stick. They own the software,
and can license it however they like. There is no law stating that you are
allowed to transfer a license to a new computer, unlike the copyright law
which allows you to make archival copies as long as they are not in use
simultaneously.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 26 Jan 2001 14:56:59 -0700
Vilmos Soti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Certain countries (Norway comes to mind) are very friendly towards
> > choice and freedom, but not 'Europe' in general.
>
> And what about Jon Johannsen (I hope I remembered his name correctly)
> who wrote the DeCCS code?
Yep, forgot about that. The US court system did pressure them,
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is fired.
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:04:41 -0600
"Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch once wrote:
> >"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.
> >
>
> And what is the common theme between these three websites?
They're on the internet. That's about it.
If you're trying to suggest they run the same OS, they don't. Yahoo runs
FreeBSD, AT&T runs Solaris.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is fired.
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:07:00 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94s6un$11i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Forget everything you learned about TCP/IP from your MCSE study books,
because
> most of it is incorrect.
You've never even read one. So how do you know?
A simple page reference in a specific book would be nice. Just one.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 26 Jan 2001 15:00:26 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Harlan Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Maybe there's a good reason for literacy tests after all.
>
> Perhaps. But ill put my verbal SAT score up against yours or anyone
> elses, any time.
You mean << I'll >> and << else's >>? ;)
We just need better election equipment. Jeb Bush's primary goal right
now is to upgrade all the counties in Florida, so he can wipe the egg
off his face. Even in remote states like Idaho, we're re-vamping the
entire system before the next congressional election.
--
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: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 22:58:27 +0100
Thaddeus L Olczyk wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2001 18:56:19 GMT, Steve Mading
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Don't forget the kernel was based on the Minix kernel written by
Nonsens
> Tanenbaum. I believe he was American.
He is Dutch
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Microsoft is fired.
Date: 26 Jan 2001 22:06:15 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:94s6un$11i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Forget everything you learned about TCP/IP from your MCSE study books,
> because
>> most of it is incorrect.
> You've never even read one. So how do you know?
Ive never read one cover to cover, quite correct. But I have skimmed through
the piles of them at my place of work for a good laugh now and then.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 26 Jan 2001 15:07:30 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Steve Withers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
>
> No. Several key MS programs will require Activation, which is not the same
> thing as registration.
>
> Registration gives your name, address, etc.. basically the same thing as
> those warranty cards. This puts you on mailing lists, etc..
>
> Activation doesn't require you to give any information, other than a one way
> hash code (similar to PGP public keys) generated from your hardware
> configuration. They won't even ask your name (if you activate manually, if
> you do it over the internet it's quite seamless).
The result is the same: one copy, one computer.
> > 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?
>
> You mean they should stop breaking the law? You guys are such hypocrites.
> You bitch about how MS is a criminal organization and needs to be punished,
> but when the law applies to you, suddenly it's unfair?
Agreed. Free software users should be loving this. We don't pirate
by definition -- only Windows people pirate software.
Oh yeah, and Amiga users too... :)
> > 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.
>
> Every year? Where do you get this. This is not subscription licensing.
Microsoft has said they want to go to this, what could this
'activation system' be other than a precuror of that eventuality? As
soon as an 'activation system' is in place, what's to stop a
'deactivation system' ala UCITA being implemented?
> > 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....
>
> Sorry, Open Source was essentially created by RMS, an American who followed
> his principles for something like 10+ years before Linus got on the
> bandwagon.
RMS has nothing to do with Open Source, he doesn't even care for it
much. RMS advocates Free Software, and, yes, there is a huge
difference between the two; primarilly:
o Open Source purports to be better than closed source software on
merits alone (ie, it's always better, more secure, etc.).
o Open Source software doesn't necessarily guarantee the rights
of the programmer as RMS sees it (BSD licensing and such).
> Why do you people like to think the US never invents anything?
Some are obviously still upset about the US being so successful. Most
Europeans that I know personally are not so lame. (Most of them even
like Microsoft Windows too!)
--
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] (rich)
Subject: Re: Run for the hills!
Date: 26 Jan 2001 22:02:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also schrieb Pete Goodwin:
>We're getting our first... <choke> Linux... <eek> box... <puke> at work.
I really, really hate you.
(Stuck with <retch> Win95 on this laptop -- at least officially. Thank
$DEITY for Bigslack.)
--
Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run for the hills!
Date: 26 Jan 2001 15:09:45 -0700
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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?
I guess we can look forward to months of new, invigorating posts about
how difficult it is to install Linux then?
(just don't tell my sister how hard it is, she might think she knows a
lot about computers..) :)
--
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] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up?
Date: 26 Jan 2001 22:10:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:94s82q$11i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "." <[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.
>>
>> You missed the point.
>>
>> Microsoft said that ONLY their DNS machines were effected, and only THOSE
> FOUR.
> They said no such thing.
Yes they did, its all over CNN, slashdot, their OWN website, etc. They said
that the only four machines that were affected were their DNS servers.
>> They also said that it was a router configuration error.
> Yes.
I suspect that they were lying from the start, and that the spin was put
on by someone who didnt know a damn thing about the way computers work.
> We don't know that. We only know that their DNS servers are behind the same
> router, somewhere.
We know more than that. We know that all of their DNS servers (if microsofts
original story is true) are all talking to the SAME INTERFACE on the same
router. This is a very, very important distinction.
>> > 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.
>>
>> Thats what theyre saying TODAY. I wonder if either story was true?
> It was quite easy to tell, traceroutes showed serious latency degradation
> before it even got to MS's routers, A clear sign of DDoS.
That latency could mean anything. We both know that microsoft spins events
like this; the question is how much did they lie, and about what exactly.
>> >> 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.
>>
>> IF the DOS story is true. I'm talking about the router configuration
> story.
> It's the same, either way.
No, it isnt. See the reasoning above.
>> If someone had fucked the config of a border router, MUCH MORE would have
>> broken than just 4 DNS machines.
> That depends on if their DNS is on it's own direct connection to the net or
> not.
It has nothing to do with that at all. What the hell are you even saying?
Look, network topology is very easy to understand, just so long as you dont
listen to a damn thing that microsoft has to say about it. Ive explained it
all a number of times, and im tired of typing. Please, for gods sake, read
the o'reilly book on tcp/ip and forget what microsoft told you.
>> > 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.
>>
>> It seems that microsoft's DNS machines were the only things affected by
>> this DOS.
> You misunderstand my point. If someone wanted to, they could DDoS the
> routers in the primary backbone. It would take quite a lot of systems of
> course, but it could be done, cutton off everyone from either side.
But thats not what happened. What happened was that FOUR and ONLY FOUR
machines were cut off. This detail is important, and gives away the entire
scenereo.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 23:07:08 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Strange, I don't know of any self-replicating worms in Windows.
All worms are self-replicating.. thats one of the definitions
> Viruses like Melissa and such require user interaction in order to
> propogate, RameN does it without any interaction at all.
You are forgetting the "dial 911" worm. I dont think there are so many that
behave this way simply because Windows machines dont have many
services/daemons running that could be used.
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.help,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:11:35 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > > What do beginning users need to know?
> > >
> > > Enough to get to the point where they can find their own answers.
> >
> > i.e. teach them HOW TO READ a 'man' page....that is, how to extract
> > relevant information out of it.
>
> And on a second thought, teach them enough about what the shell does
> to the command line before starting programs that they will understand
> why man pages don't discuss wildcard filenames, i/o redirection,
> or pipes. Go through the shell man page first (perhaps several times)
> so they will know how to read all the others.
>
True. If a newbie can get to understanding that 45-page document, then
he should be able to figure out pretty much any other typical task without
problems.
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
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] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 26 Jan 2001 22:13:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Harlan Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Maybe there's a good reason for literacy tests after all.
>>
>> Perhaps. But ill put my verbal SAT score up against yours or anyone
>> elses, any time.
> You mean << I'll >> and << else's >>? ;)
No, I meant exactly what I typed. See dejanews for my multiple arguments
for the granular use of capitals and contractions in informal prose.
> We just need better election equipment. Jeb Bush's primary goal right
> now is to upgrade all the counties in Florida, so he can wipe the egg
> off his face. Even in remote states like Idaho, we're re-vamping the
> entire system before the next congressional election.
Good. It needs to be done.
Also, old ladies who have never been out of their front yard need to not
be the ones deciding whether or not to count hundreds of absentee ballots.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up?
Date: 26 Jan 2001 15:14:04 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > Just when you thought things were going to be stable.... along comes ipv6
> >
> > Come on guys Unix has had this installed by default for years.
>
> Which Unix? The BSD's have had a beta version for quire some time, I don't
> think it's quite considered "done yet". And saying "by default for years"
> is a bit strong, since it was quite optional 2 years ago when I was uisng
> FreeBSD commonly, though it is installed by default now.
Because all the ipv6 developers either run Linux or BSD?
I still have my doubts that ipv6 will ever take off, though. It is a
huge monster with too many committee-designed options included. There
are going to be stack overflows for years to come if it is ever
adopted.
(yes, I'm on an i2-routed 6bone and I use it occasionally -- but
upgrading every router everywhere is going to be quite a task)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
