Linux-Advocacy Digest #751, Volume #31 Fri, 26 Jan 01 19:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler, the greatest jump forward in the evolution of computing... ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (John Hasler)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Whistler, the greatest jump forward in the evolution of computing... (Donn
Miller)
Re: Does Code Decay ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up? (Shane Phelps)
Re: Does Code Decay ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Whistler predictions... ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Does Code Decay ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler, the greatest jump forward in the evolution of computing...
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:14:35 -0500
bAckline wrote:
>
> Microsoft Windows 2001, code-name whistler, said to be the
^^^^^^^^^^
By whom? Oh yeah, Microsoft marketing, and certain paid
flacks and M$ cult members.
> greatest jump forward in the evolution of computing and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> information technology,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For Microsoft....However, the rest of the industry
accomplished these same technological feats over a
decade ago.
> since the advent of the
> drop-shadowed mouse cursor.
Oooooooooooh, now THERE's a feat worthy of a whole system upgrade.
> Windows 2001 will be easier
> to use, faster, more reliable, more advanced and better
> looking than any other computing platform currently available
> to man.
....from Microsoft.
Compared to Linux, it's still a complicated mess.
>
> http://www.geek-ware.co.uk/article.pl?sid=00/11/10/2134203
>
> PROUD to be GEEK
> http://www.geek-ware.co.uk
--
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: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 22:06:06 GMT
Thaddeus L Olczyk writes:
> Don't forget the kernel was based on the Minix kernel...
No. (For one thing, Minix was not free.)
> ...written by Tanenbaum. I believe he was American.
Still is, as far as I know.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:21:05 -0500
Mart van deWege wrote:
>
> Martin Eden wrote:
>
> <snip some stuff>
> > As I understand it, there is going to be Professional and Personal
> >
> > versions. Personal will be the upgrade from WinME, Professional will be
> >
> > upgrade from Win2K. Server versions may appear too, I imagine.
> >
> >
> >
> > I never got to find out whether the personal version will support SMP, nor
> >
> > NTFS, nor any of the other worthwhile features Microsoft likes to hide from
> >
> > the poor suckers who are stuck with OEM installs. I ran the "Professional"
> >
> > edition. I wasn't impressed.
> <snip some more>
> So,
>
> If I understand, Windows 2000 was introduced in Feb 2000, and it
> is already slated for replacement this year? Not to mention of
> course that WinME was only introduced in what, November?
> Talk about forced upgrade!
It's like the old Intel 386/486 DX/SX/LostX/MMX/what-the-fuck-is-X routine
If you can't create a superior product, then be SURE to create confusion.
>
> Mart
--
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: "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 17:31:28 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94sskq$ae9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 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.
No, they didn't. Here's the press release:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2001/Jan01/01-24DNSpr.asp
Nowhere does it say this.
They only said that the change limited communicate between MS's DNS servers
and the Internet. You're reading way too much into it. Many other servers
may or may not have also been effected, but the DNS issue was the only one
that mattered for the problem.
> >> 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.
And your evidence of this is what?
> > 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.
No, we only know they are all behind the same router, somwhere on their
network. The story doesn't say the DNS servers talk directly to the router
in question, you're assuming they do and making this up.
> >> > 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.
High latency and dropped packets are symptoms of either incorrectly
configured routers or overloaded routers. Since the degradation began
before even reaching MS's routers, you can't blame MS's configuration.
> >> 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.
You mean your tired of making up excuses that are easily shot out of the
water.
It's quite easy to understand. If MS has two (or more) pipes, with one of
them going to the network where the DNS servers are, and one (or more) going
to their server farms, then a problem with a router on one won't effect the
other.
Or is that too difficult for you to understand?
> >> > 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.
We have no idea how many machines were cut off.
But that's irrelevant. You seem to think that it's a poor design to run
everything through one or two sets of routers, and my point is that the main
backbones do just this.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:25:33 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler, the greatest jump forward in the evolution of computing...
bAckline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
What the hell is that? You could use any bitmap you like for a cursor
under X.
====== 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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:25:22 -0500
Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> It was the Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:28:05 -0000...
> ...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Kind of like the nuclear-fission handgrenade, but without the benefits.
> >
> > ...they actually did make fission artillery shells...
> >
> > "The nuclear artillery: We're so sure we'll get our man because
> > we'll get ourselves at the same time..." '-)
>
> Ever seen a picture of a test shot with an Atom Annie? Those were 28
> cm guns and they carried that little tactical nuke quite far away.
> There's a quite famous photo showing a US soldier next to a howitzer
> and, at the horizon, the mushroom already blossoming.
>
> No danger of killing the Good Guys(TM) together with Mother Russia's
> sons unless someone extremely stupid operated that gun.
You'd have a hard time at that. It would take a lot of work....like
parking the thing on a significant upward slope, and then raising
the barrel to full elevation, so that you're shooting within a few
degrees of vertical, to drop the round back on yourself.
Artillery shells have a number of "safety"...for example, the round
doesn't arm itself until AFTER it's been fired. As the shell spins,
the arming mechenism gets activated. Typically, a High Explosive
shell has to spin 20 times or more before it is armed.
Not sure what the safety system on tac nuke shells are.
>
> mawa
> --
> ICH WILL HIER RAUS
--
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: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up?
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 10:28:25 +1100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[ snip ]
> > 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.
I think he exaggerated just a trifle :-). Solaris 8 certainly uses IPv6
by
default, but 2.6 didn't. I only installed Sol 7 once a couple of years
ago;
think it might've defaulted to IPv6 as well. I can't speak for any
other
unix versions.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:27:38 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:54:33 +0000, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >It was the Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:28:05 -0000...
> >...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Kind of like the nuclear-fission handgrenade, but without the benefits.
> >>
> >> ...they actually did make fission artillery shells...
> >>
> >> "The nuclear artillery: We're so sure we'll get our man because
> >> we'll get ourselves at the same time..." '-)
> >
> >Ever seen a picture of a test shot with an Atom Annie? Those were 28
> >cm guns and they carried that little tactical nuke quite far away.
> >There's a quite famous photo showing a US soldier next to a howitzer
> >and, at the horizon, the mushroom already blossoming.
> >
> >No danger of killing the Good Guys(TM) together with Mother Russia's
> >sons unless someone extremely stupid operated that gun.
>
> ...certainly no chance of that in the Army. <chuckle>
>
Actually, you have to be fairly intelligent to even be in a mortar section.
The truly stupid are made into cooks....[Not to say that all Army cooks
are stupid....lots of intelligent people become cooks, too....quick
promotions, there if you're smart].
> --
>
>
>
--
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: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Date: 26 Jan 2001 17:31:04 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <3a70dde4$0$12016$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Johanson wrote:
> >I SERIOULSY doubt it's possible for anyone to spue more lies and FUD in a
> >single post than this asshole.
> >
>
> May I ask WHY you made this statement?
Because you are wrong in more ways than right.
>
> Let's look at this post...
>
>
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> When whistler finally hit's market I predict the following.
> >>
> >> 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?
According to IDC, MS has exceeded their predictions for sales of W2K in the
first 6 months. I'd consider that serious sales.
>
>
> >> 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.
Show me the money, er, URL.
>
> When W2k came out, during the install process the
> license authentication phoned home to Microsoft.
Bullshit. Not true. I've been running W2K since beta and never ever did I
need a modem let alone contact MS.
>
> People found out about it and cried foul!
>
> In Microsoft's new EULA they will simply state that
> *** YOU *** agree to this on a permanent basis.
>
> That's .NET.
You are completely wrong.
>
> >> 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.
They won't fear when MS doesn't do this.
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> Whistler will be around $550, you watch and see.
Amazing, W2K is the same price as NT... don't know where you shop but you
best get some better pricing!!
>
>
> >> 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.
As far as my experience has shown, I've NEVER had a W2K box go down
unscheduled. I consider that unlimited uptime. I KNOW for a fact that MS
(in fact, no company) has ever claimed "unlimited" uptime. Don't be
ridiculous.
>
> Proof - studies already run have shown W2k to have
> just double the uptime of NT, but not unlimited.
Studies show at the very least W2K is 13 times more reliable than NT -
multiple studies. But I think those studies are wrong, I think it's much
better than that.
>
> And W2k will still bluescreen under heavy traffic
> and lock up.
I have never experienced this. I know of no one who has experienced this. I
can find no reliable documentation of this. We all know of HUGE sites
running tremendous traffic and this never happens. W2K has scored the
highest possible scores on several benchmarks and NEVER "bluescreened" or
locked up. W2K has been tested by every magazine and website you can name
and NONE of them has EVER reported locking up under load. You are spreading
FUD.
>
>
>
> >> But this isn't anything new for Microsoft. They have
> >> doubled the problems and the price of EVERY release
> >> of their Windows OS.
Gee, and you could buy a car for $300 at some point. Gee, you could buy a
house for $15,000. You don't imagine that as time has past and the product
improved that the price MIGHT go up - but in W2K's case, it costs the same
as NT did when it came out years ago. Stop lying.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:31:45 -0500
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> 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.
That would have to be REALLY old.
Even the 4.2BSD C compiler (ca 1981) would refuse to compile anything
with an undeclared variable.
> 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.
MS is merely creating a myth for the purpose of obfuscating that they
are too inept to develop and maintain an enduring API and enduring
data formats (.doc, .xls, etc.)
>
> -----= 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! =-----
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 18:34:03 -0500
MH wrote:
>
> > Heh. Microsoft shot itself in the foot with Windows 2000.
>
> Perhaps.
>
> > I got the chance to see the much lauded "Whistler Professional" in action
> > last night. What a worthless piece of shit. I thought WinME was crap, but
> > this sets a whole new standard in worthlessness. It was slow as molasses
> on
> > a 700mhz Pentium III. There were a lot of very stupid and useless add ons
> in
> > it too, including some bizarre theme manager that will make your desktop
> > look marginally like Aqua (MacOS X).
>
> Your knowlege of the word 'beta' as it applies to software is marginal,
> isn't it?
> There is tons of debug code running in whistler, at least in build 2296.
> The process list is more than double what it would be under normal
> circumstances, and
> constant logging is going on behind the scenes. Please look for, and get a
> clue before spreading this manure.
Translation: When Microsoft creates and spreads deliberate lies, and
arm-twists magazines into publishing those lies (under threat
of loss of advertising revenue), that's OK...
But if anybody tells the TRUTH about Microsoft code, it's "manure"
Nice double standard you have there, SHIT-FOR-BRAINS.
>
> -the rest was deemed waste, and was snipped accordingly.
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:44:39 -0600
"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:94ssma$14t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
I mean NT based windows, but even so. According to Symantec, this worm has
effected less than 50 computers.
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/bat.chode.worm.html
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
