Linux-Advocacy Digest #250, Volume #32 Fri, 16 Feb 01 23:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: It's just too easy (Steve Mading)
Re: It's just too easy (Mike Martinet)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Bloody Viking)
Re: Interesting article (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Interesting article ("Chad Myers")
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Bloody Viking)
Re: Interesting article (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Mike Martinet)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Bloody Viking)
Re: New kernel 2.4.1 rocks with IPMASQ ("Adam Warner")
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linux Mandrake and DHCP (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Interesting article
Re: New kernel 2.4.1 rocks with IPMASQ (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 02:06:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Flacco wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The market will speak on this. MS can't force people.
>> >>
>> >> ...unless they manage to outlaw open source software.
>>
>> > That's impossible in the US.
>>
>> > First Amendment.
>>
>> McCarthy hearings.
>>
>> Not only is it possible, but it has happened, is happening,
>> and will happen again.
>
>McCarthy never abridged free speech.
>
>By the way...not only was McCarthy right about communist
>infiltration of the State Department....he under-stated
>the problem by nearly an order of magnitude.
>
Now that we have the KGB records this is true.
But the people he went after were the wrong people.
>
>>
>> -----.
>
>--
>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.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's just too easy
Date: 17 Feb 2001 02:05:01 GMT
Pete Goodwin <imekon@$$$remove$$$.freeuk.com> wrote:
: My own experiences have been the complete opposite of yours. Who is telling
: the truth here? You or me?
: Would it surprise you if I said both of us? And would you understand why?
It certainly surprised me to hear you mention it. It almost sounds
like you are trying to be fair-minded. Why the change?
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's just too easy
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:27:50 -0700
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> I installed a new NIC in a frien's RH 6.2 box today.
>
> It went something like this:
>
> Open the case.
>
<story snipped in interest of readability>
I had a similar experience recently. The MoBo of the P90 that's been my
Linux firewall, test bed and gateway died after the power supply
croaked. I had a P133 sitting around, so I put the Linux HD
in the P133 (which is an ATX as opposed to the P90's AT) and figured I'd
have some work ahead of me.
Huh? The thing just came up. Linux said, "Oh, I'm on a P133 now?
Cool!" And that was it.
Modified Red Hat 6.1 (Cartman)
Kernel 2.2.16 on a P133 (for now)
login:
I know from experience, Windows would have had a major fit. I would
have sat through endless dialog boxes informing me that "Windows has
found new hardware" and "Windows is now installing the software for your
new hardware" until something irrevocably punted, necessitating a total
reinstall.
Emboldened, I then swapped out the ISA NIC card for the PCI card that
was originally in the 133 and edited a line in conf.modules. Again, no
worries. Amazing.
MjM
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: 17 Feb 2001 02:53:57 GMT
Todd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: As a Windows 2000 advocate, I'd have to agree that MS is going to kill
: themselves if they forge ahead with .NET.
: What the hell are they thinking? I hope they don't really think people are
: going to buy into their plan... it might make even diehard windows users
: change...
This is about the smartest thing any Windows fan has ever said. It's like how
I'm a Linux fan but I'm quick to admit that Linux will be harsh on new desktop
users to say the least. As a home user, Linux does work for me but I decided
to tolerate its quirks and my own limitations. My LILO tale is a classic.
What helped me all this time is that I like to sit back and do SOME coding.
No, not adding to the kernel, but coding math stuff for my own amusement, and
releasing my occasional code as GNU, mostly for C beginners to enjoy.
I found that I'm also willing to tolerate some configuring, an attribute often
missing in the "normal" home computering crowd. Of the non-techie crowd, I'm
one of rather few home users of Linux. Most of the fans are techies of some
flavour, used to messing with servers. I've played with a Linux home LAN with
old Slackware, and made it work fine.
>From what I see, it takes a techie-like person to appreciate UNIX and Linux.
No, you don't have to be a top-gun C programmer, but you need an interest in
OSes and how they work. I'll never be a hot-shot techie, but I enjoy Linux,
despite my own limitations. Check out the Linux Distro or the LILO thread for
how I messed with LILO workarounds from a flaky BIOS. At one time I ranted
about CD drives but learned to get them to work by my own experiments. As far
as LILO I found pet workarounds.
Despite my occasional pet problem, I gladly adopted Linux and UNIX in general.
It's a very capable OS, limited only by your imagination and abilities. I now
consider some flavour of UNIX to be my standard. For the home, it's Linux,
unless at some time I go with FreeBSD. I like my UNIX.
UNIX always creates a box with a personality of its own, more than the exact
UNIX flavour used. It gets almost "human" in that way. The "personalty" is
always from configuration of the box. Every ISP with shell accounts behaves
different when you mess with email bots, despite always choosing in my case
the C Shell.
UNIX (in all flavours) is great!
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 03:01:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Shane Phelps wrote:
>
>
>Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> "Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > > No, really, what has changed dramatically in Unix in the
>> > > last 10 years?
>> >
>> > Lots.
>>
>> Like? A bunch of cosmetic changes and hardware updates, maybe,
>> but other than that, not much.
>>
>
>
>Just what do you *want* to change? SVR4 is quite a different beast
>under the covers to SVR2 or System 7 or BSD 4.2, for example.
>The part that really hasn't changed recently is POSIX, and surely it's
>a Good Thing to have the compatibility between versions. Microsoft
>went to great lengths to provide backward compatibility.
>For that matter, what has changed in Windows in the last 10 years?
>Seriously. There seem to be lots of cosmetic changes, but the only
>really new capability is Terminal Server - and that came from Citrix.
>
Well,
For Windows to qualify in the same arena with Unix it would
mean that it would have to be able to run for 72 straight business
hours on regular off the shelf PC hardware without bluescreening,
locking up or a catastrophic failure.
This paragraph is provided in response to the Microsoft backward
compatibility comment as if you can't get it up baby it don't
count. Who cares.... It's only useful if it's going to stay
up for an extended period of time.
And I don't mean going out and buying $80,000 worth of name
brand server to make that 3 days either. That's just fucking
idiotic.
Linux would run on hardware which would make Windows and most
of the commercial world including BSD just flat *CRASH*.
Backwards compatibility is ONLY useful if the operating
system is worth it's weight in shit to begin with.
>> > > We still use telnet
>> >
>> > Only if you're really backwards. It's called ssh these days.
>>
>> Same difference. Same 70's technologies. This is great, I love
>> how you guys think that SSH is some major advancement. It's
>> still telnet, just with encryption, and shoddy encryption at that!
>>
>
>How is it shoddy? The only real vulnerability is the possibility of
>MitM attacks at the original key exchange.
>There was a big flap on comp.security.ssh. a year or so back when
>it was thought a vulnerability may have been found, but it turned out
>to be a red herring.
>Ssh is very widely used, not just in the Unix world. I'd like to know
>how you feel it's vulnerable.
>
>[ snip the rest ]
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 02:49:49 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:96jg3p$9hn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:MEaj6.27470$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> < Perm bits
> > are ancient, a poor design, and are really unsecure.
>
> Describ a way to get over permissions in any *nix that implement perm bits
> (all of them).
You're not understanding what I'm saying...
It's the mentality. Permission bits are extremely limiting, as they
only allow one owner, one group, and everyone else.
Secondly, permissions are not applied pervasively. That is, they're
only applied to files and file/devices. You can't set an ACL on
whether or not someone can access a specific porition of a file,
you can't set permissions on whether or not a particular process
can perform specific functions with the OS.
Secondly, this is a little off of perm bits, but related, there's
almost no auditing, or not serious auditing in Linux, for example
and in many Unixes. The Unixes that have DAC have a full auditing
scheme. In fact, that's a requirement of DAC is to verify that
permissions are applied properly and that users are not circumventing
the intent of the permissions.
Perm bits, as agreed by anyone who has a basic understanding of
secure OS implementations, are kindergarten-level, and are insecure
by nature.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: 17 Feb 2001 03:12:30 GMT
T. Max Devlin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I believe it is every citizens responsibility to provide false
: information in all such circumstances. I love it; it gives me a warm
: glow knowing that I'm casually and without a thought causing their
: database to be just that little bit more worthless.
I thought of going as "Oliver Troglodyte" at APT. 404 address *. The name can
only be decrypted by people into chimpanzees! ("troglodyte" being the second
word in "Pan troglodyte" the species name of conventional chimpanzees) A
second name I considered is Antonio Panisco, a joke on "Jabriol" of
talk.origins infamy whereby "panisco" is hispanified for "paniscus", the second
word in the species name of bonobos being Pan paniscus, the "Jerry Springer
Ape". Oliver Panisco would work out nicely at APT 404 should work fine.
Show off your roots from 5M years ago! (:
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 03:12:30 GMT
In article <hFlj6.41815$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:96jg3p$9hn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:MEaj6.27470$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> < Perm bits
>> > are ancient, a poor design, and are really unsecure.
>>
>> Describ a way to get over permissions in any *nix that implement perm bits
>> (all of them).
>
>You're not understanding what I'm saying...
>
>It's the mentality. Permission bits are extremely limiting, as they
>only allow one owner, one group, and everyone else.
>
>Secondly, permissions are not applied pervasively. That is, they're
>only applied to files and file/devices. You can't set an ACL on
>whether or not someone can access a specific porition of a file,
>you can't set permissions on whether or not a particular process
>can perform specific functions with the OS.
>
>Secondly, this is a little off of perm bits, but related, there's
>almost no auditing, or not serious auditing in Linux, for example
>and in many Unixes. The Unixes that have DAC have a full auditing
>scheme. In fact, that's a requirement of DAC is to verify that
>permissions are applied properly and that users are not circumventing
>the intent of the permissions.
>
>Perm bits, as agreed by anyone who has a basic understanding of
>secure OS implementations, are kindergarten-level, and are insecure
>by nature.
>
>-Chad
>
Well, as numerous people have been saying for decades now,
if you can't keep the operating system up for 72 straight hours
under a business environment then what use is it anyway.
Windows is a dismal failure for heavy use.
As for the security aspects your pointing out, the current permission
bit is more than enough for any company.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:29:34 -0700
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
<snipola>
>
> UNIX (in all flavours) is great!
>
I can't help but agree. I was a big fan of DOS until the day they
rolled a SUN 360 into my work area and told me I was going to have to
learn to use it. I knew a tiny bit about email and networking. When I
got a moment to myself, I started exploring SunOS. I found the 'man'
pages and then I found something called 'at' which, according to the man
pages, would schedule jobs for later execution. I spent some time
trying to enter an 'at' job, with no visible success. (I think I tried
to schedule 'ls /' to run five minutes in the future.) I shut the
machine down and went home.
The next day, when I brought the 360 back up and logged in as 'root', I
was dumbfounded - I HAD MAIL! The Operating System on this machine,
connected to nothing other than power, shut off overnight, had LEFT ME
MAIL! I couldn't believe it. As 'root' I had a message informing me
that a cron job had failed to run.
I've been in awe of Unix, in all its flavo(u)rs, ever since.
MjM
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: 17 Feb 2001 03:38:06 GMT
T. Max Devlin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: >As far as commercialware, I got fed up with prices YEARS ago, back when it was
: >way less costly. Now, the prices are unreal. 1994, a C compiler, full version
: >cost $70. Now, you get a broken "student" version for $300. Way back when,
: >Office cost $200. Now, it's like $600.
: Well, that's what happens with monopoly pricing. Me, I'm on the other
: end; I would *LOVE* to find a package that's _worth_ $200. There's
: little around that's really worth $70, though, TBH. And even the
: miscellaneous programs and utilities, which should cost maybe $5, are
: upwards of $40 (I know, I've paid for some of them, in a vain hope of
: getting the computer to work like I want). Agent is something of an
: acception; at least paying for it has more affect than just getting rid
: of the banner ads!
Exactly. It did a LOT toward my adventure into Linux. It's like I saw the
trend very early on and acted when I fired up my old box on July 10 1994 with
a hosed version of Sklackware. For better or worse, that first light-off was a
watershed event in my computering history.
For the home user, Linux does need work. In my case I actually wanted a
mainframe-like OS at home. That factor was an early appeal to me, and now,
it's a "supercomputer" appeal. I'd love to dig up a dumpsterful of old PCs to
rig into a cluster with Linux Extreme to be the first on the block with a
supercomputer. (: Maybe I'm simply a frustrated mainframer. :) Oddly, from
what I see, most Linux fans are not some flavour of a mainframer. That's fine
by me. I simply always wanted a supercomputer to play with, and Linux allows
one to have a "toy supercomputer". The old Crays run UNICOS, a UNIX clone.
Happily, nowadays, anyone with some money (not THAT much) can buy the
equivalent of a Cray 1 in the form of a DEC Alpha and have Linux on it. Modern
Pentiums are even better, particularly on multichip motherboards. Get a gig of
memory and outfit with wide SCSI and you have an old Cray. I have half a cray
waitiog to be started.
What sucks is how MS slows down even a Cray 1 equivalent to like a Commodore
64. Anyone can buy a cray, but MS makes it too bloody slow.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New kernel 2.4.1 rocks with IPMASQ
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 16:44:03 +1300
Hi J Sloan,
>> Everything's now fine. It would have been the Voodoo3 DRI kernel
>> support or ACPI that was causing the problem. Because the reboot
>> & lockups only happened in X I'm predicting it was the DRI support.
>
> That's odd, I have 2 boxes with voodoo3 running Xfree86 4.0.x - I play
> q3a for hours on my home box, and run 3D screensavers on my office
> machine, sometimes for weeks at a time and it has been rock solid.
>
That's good to hear. Maybe it's an smp issue.
I found another showstopper bug in ac15. You couldn't use smbmount as a
client. Got the patch within 2 hours after emailing the samba mailing
list.
Now I'm running 2.4.1-ac17 which incorporates the patch.
For the life of me I can't get realplayer to work with 2.2.17 IP
masquerading (I understand a bug was introduced in 2.2.17). So my aim is
to set up 2.4.x NAT and see if that will work.
I noticed a realplayer bug fix and then there's been a couple of tulip
(network card) issues so that's also why I'm now at 2.4.1-ac17. Good so far
even though Alan warned "This merges 2.4.2pre4 which includes more elevator
changes so please treat ac17 with caution."
(What's an elevator change?)
So that's why I'm at the cutting edge.
Here's Paul Ferris' response to Microsoft's latest FUD:
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-02-15-003-20-OP
Like Paul, I didn't find the latest round of MS's comments funny at all.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:57:00 -0500
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Edward Rosten wrote:
> >>
> >> > It seems unlikely that the Itanium code can be called finished until
> >> > the chip ships.
> >>
> >> In case you hadn't noticed, the Itanium is shipping now, in HP
> >> computers.
> >>
> >> MS somehow coerced intel in to not releasing it for lower end stuff
> >> until MS were finished.
> >
> > To the benefit of AMD.
> >
> > I'll bet this is the LAST time Intel ever makes a deal like that.
>
> I hope so. If the 64 bit AMD cpus hit the market soon, they could make a
> really big impact.
I believe they already are...
>
> This is one thing Linux is *really* good for. Since it is so portable, it
> meand that every CPU around can have a very high quality, highly
> avaliable OS developed in a very short time. The result should be much
> greater competition in the CPU market, since CPU vendors don't need a
> whole new OS to be made.
This was the original reason why Kernighan and Ritchie came up
with the C language...after the first time Unix was ported (around
1970) from a PDP-8(?) to a PDP-11, the Unix team decided that they
NEVER wanted to port an assembly-language kernel ever again.
C was invented so that they could rewrite the kernel in C, and
then, when new hardware came along, 90% of the code would be
ported by simply writing a compiler.
And because of this is why DARPA (US Defence Advanced Research
Projects Agency) picked Unix for the highly-portable operating
system project.....better known as BSD Unix.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
> weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
> - The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
> |eng.ox.ac.uk
--
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 Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake and DHCP
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:58:25 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Hopefully my Linux Mandrake setup won't have much longer to live... roll on
> SuSE 7.1! (Here's hoping).
>
> Well, I got my Cable modem today. It's all working on Windows 98 SE with no
> problems.
>
> Alas, poor Linux Mandrake...
>
> I configure it as follows:
>
> eth0 - private address on my own network
> eth1 - DHCP
>
> and restarted the network.
>
> eth0 hangs and eventually times out (what's this? It's got an address, it
> looks like it's trying to use DHCP? Strange!)
>
> eth1 hangs and times out too. No network. Oh dear!
This is because you, Pete Goodwin, are a moron.
look up the ifconfig command.
Even an idiot like you should be able to handle it.
>
> Now, this is highly likely to be a Linux Mandrake issue (which is why I'll
> be trying another distro). I'll probably have a look in the HOWTO's but it
> depends on how complex it all gets.
No..it's an "operator headspace error"...just like 98% of your
other complaints.
>
> --
> Pete Goodwin
> ---
> On that unstable much loved system known as Windows 98 SE.
--
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:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 04:02:08 -0000
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 00:14:20 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:12:05 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>> >Terminal Services allows you a graphical login, it comes with 2000 & XP.
>> >It has security and the protocol is more efficent than X.
>>
>> Being a decade and a half younger, one would hope so...
>
>Ha? One would assume that X would be the more efficent protocol, being more
>mature, and being developed at a time that make even low bandwitdh
>connection of today high bandwidth one then.
You are confusing MIT with Berkeley.
--
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New kernel 2.4.1 rocks with IPMASQ
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 04:03:43 GMT
Adam Warner wrote:
> That's good to hear. Maybe it's an smp issue.
Yes, well I've decided that my next mobo will be SMP,
so I'll be having plenty of fun with 2.5.x kernels I'm sure.
> For the life of me I can't get realplayer to work with 2.2.17 IP
> masquerading (I understand a bug was introduced in 2.2.17). So my aim is
> to set up 2.4.x NAT and see if that will work.
native iptables, or ipchains emulation?
> (What's an elevator change?)
The elevator being the thing that goes up and down
and inputs and outputs people at different floors, the
disk algortihm is like an elevator moving up and down
(or back and forth depending on how your disk is
oriented), reading and writing bits on different tracks.
The key is to schedule things so the trips up & down
are efficient, and combine passengers for maximum
efficiency, but OTOH you can't make any passenger
wait too long. It's a tricky business to make it work
well in all situations.
Regards,
jjs
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
