Linux-Advocacy Digest #255, Volume #32 Sat, 17 Feb 01 02:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Interesting article (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Interesting article (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Interesting article ("Todd")
Re: It's just too easy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: [Q] newbie about TELNET into LINUX problem? (Shane Phelps)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Michael Vester)
Re: .NET is plain .NUTS (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[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 01:03:59 -0500
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.
And gasoline engine + wheels is extremely limiting as compared
to say, wings, rocket engines, and a launch pad.
But as long as you have not the slightest intention of taking
your wheeled vehicle across the ocean, it is quite sufficient.
You can have 65535 DISTINCT groups on a Linix system, Chad.
And if that's not enough for you, go hack the code, and make
it a 32-bit integer, so that you can have 4 BILLION groups.
>
> 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.
Blah blah fucking blah
Name ONE instance outside of NSA, CIA, State Department or
armed forces intelligence services where any of this is necessary?
>
> 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.
Translation:
Unix has everything that Chad just got through saying that it lacks.
Hint fucking Hint: It's a good idea to NOT write one paragraph,
and then contradict yourself in the next one.
>
> Perm bits, as agreed by anyone who has a basic understanding of
> secure OS implementations, are kindergarten-level, and are insecure
> by nature.
Only if you the admin is an idiot.
>
> -Chad
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 01:05:15 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> 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.
And Microsoft can't even cross that low hurdle.
>
> >> > > 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
--
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: "Todd" <[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 14:08:23 +0800
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Mike Byrns in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:54:52
> >"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >>
> >> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > Chad Myers wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > But it has. It has grabbed a significant amount of server share
from
> >> > > > Unix. When NT 4.0 was released, NT made up less than 2% of the
> >> > > > server market. It now makes up a majority, IIRC. If not, close to
> >it.
> >> > >
> >> > > You're sadly mistaken - windows nt has gained market share
> >> > > solely at the expense of other pc operating systems such as
> >> > > netware, OS2 and windows for workgroups.
> >> >
> >> > I say you are wrong. Post proof to disprove me or accept my
assertion.
> >> >
> >> > > > There was, is, and always will be a strong Unix contingent just
> >> > > > because Unix admins are blockheads and refuse to use whatever's
> >> > > > best, only Unix. However, Linux is a suitable alternative, so
> >> > > > this is why Unix has made in-roads. It's not unix, but it's
> >> > > > close enough and it's a lot cheaper than Solaris or HP-UX.
> >> > >
> >> > > It's not Unix by a lawyer's definition, but it's Unix by
> >> > > a techie definition, to be sure. and it's the fastest
> >> > > developing Unix in existence.
> >> >
> >> > "Fastest developing UNIX"? That's an oxymoron. :-)
> >>
> >> Only to pig-headed fools such as yourself.
> >
> >Such weighty content Aaron ;-) UNIX doesn't really "develop". It's an
old
> >picture from the 60s that was done developing long ago. Now it's in
> >maintenance mode -- striving to keep up as new hardware and technologies
> >surface. I've seen very little development in the core BSD tools since
> >Stallman's days. Oh, I know, it's because they are PERFECT now ;-) I
get
> >it -- NOT!
>
> No, its because, where development is done, it isn't done by modifying
> the old tools, but by developing new tools which are less 'not perfect'.
> Such is the way of computer software. Where the old tools still are in
> use, it is because they serve the purpose necessary; if you wish to
> improve them, you are free to do so. More likely, though, you would
> come up with something new.
>
> *Unix* doesn't develop because it isn't a product. The technology only
> changes when it serves a purpose; Unix hasn't gotten more
> consumer-oriented, simply, because consumers don't have access to Unix,
Consumers wouldn't *choose* UNIX... you can easily get UNIX off the net or
in many stores (Linux) and even preloaded.
> due to Microsoft's illegal monopolization of the pre-load market.
Nope. First of all, a monopoly isn't illegal. Secondly, nobody is forced
to preload Windows... if this were true, you wouldn't see Linux preloads.
The bottom line is this: The guys running the shops who need to make a
living *know* that consumers would balk at Linux... heck, Linux doesn't even
have a decent browser!
Don't blame Linux' problems on MS. Linux is an open system and its problems
are not in anyway MS' fault.
-Todd
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's just too easy
Date: 17 Feb 2001 06:08:25 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 17 Feb 2001 00:24:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Pete Goodwin <imekon@$$$remove$$$.freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <96karo$1u9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [deletia]
>>>>All problems I have had have been with faulty hardware. All the other
>>>>problems have been with Win9X which is quite frankly awful.
>>
>>> My own experiences have been the complete opposite of yours. Who is telling
>>> the truth here? You or me?
>>
>>You both are. Hes running redhat 6.2, youre running mandrake. They are
>>different in many ways.
> They're not that much different.
> One is based on the other. They both use the same kernel and
> they both use the same hardware autodetection daemon.
Mandrake's startup scripts are significantly different.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: 17 Feb 2001 06:09:56 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> The people he went after would have suffered not in the least
> if they had merely turned states' evidence and simply turned
> in the deeply burrowed traitors and moles.
> They knew names, but refused to reveal them.
And by law, didnt have to. They did nothing illegal, yet they
were harrassed and their careers ruined, and often ended up in
jail with *no trial*.
> However, they thought preserving their ideology was more important
> than loyalty to their fellow citizens, and the very Constitution
> which keeps them free.
The very constitution that protected their silence. See the fifth
amendment.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 01:10:42 -0500
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> 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.
Your typical corporate desktop user doesn't have to deal with LILO
installs
any more than he/she has to deal with Windows installs.
Actually, they're more familiar with Windows installationRIGHT NOW than
they will ever be with LILO installation.
>
> 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.
There's a "PC Talk" program here in Detroit on the weekends...All kinds
of clue-less windows users calling in who are totally perplexed by the
"intuitive" configuration tools for LoseDOS.
>
> 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.
>
The only reason the average corporate user fears Unix is because
Microsoft
rolled out a MAJOR "Unix is too difficult to understand" campaign back
in the late MS-DOS 5.0 years.
As if "mkdir" is somehow more difficult to remember when sitting in
front
of a Unix prompt than when sitting in front of a DOS prompt.
> 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.
--
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.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: [Q] newbie about TELNET into LINUX problem?
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 17:28:05 +1100
J Sloan wrote:
>
> MCC wrote:
>
> > Every time while we "telnet"
> > from other computer into this LINUX server, we have following proble:
> >
> > %telnet 192.9.204.201
> > Trying 192.9.204.201...
> > Connected to 192.9.204.201.
> > Escape character is '^]'.
> >
> > User Access Verification
> >
> > Password:
> > Password:
> > Password:
> > % Bad passwords
> > Connection closed by foreign host.
>
> That is not linux, you are connecting to a router or something.
>
> This is what telnet to Red Hat 6.1 looks like:
>
> Trying 10.63.12.100...
> Connected to raven
> Escape character is '^]'.
>
> Red Hat Linux release 6.1 (Cartman)
> Kernel 2.2.18 on an i686
> login:
>
> Doublecheck your IP address, and check for
> a cisco box or something using that address -
>
> jjs
>
> >
> >
> > No matter which password I type, it make NO difference and their has NO userID
> > for me to type. Sometime the following screen will come out(don't know why) and
> > I can login without problem:
> >
> > Red Hat Linux release 6.1 (Cartman)
> > Kernel 2.2.12-20 on an i686
> > login:
> >
> > Their also have another problem. If I lucky "telnet" into this server and did
>not
> > touch this "telnet" session for 5 minutes, it will automatic disconnect. Does
> > their has way to fix?
> >
> > Thanks
Just to expand on jjs's response, the last 3 paragraphs are the giveaway.
It looks like you have a router and the Linux box on the same IP address.
Try taking the Linux box off the network, and pinging that IP address again.
If anything responds, check the ARP entry for that IP address. Each manufacturer
has a block of MAC addresses allocated to it. Unfortunately, Cisco uses
a *lot*
of MAC address blocks after buying out much of the competition. Cisco's MAC
address blocks don't look anything like PC NIC MAC address ranges (I think
they're 00:C0-something, but it's been a while)
A traceroute could be quite useful as well, to give some idea of just where
on the network that router is.
IP addresses can be a real pain to keep straight. Try pinging everything
on the subnet, and give the Linux box something that doesn't respond
- assuming it's *your* subnet, of course :-)
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:05:46 -0700
Mike Flournoy wrote:
>
> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Martel at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/15/01 12:16 AM:
>
> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 04:36:06 GMT, "Peter T. Breuer"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Agreed. It is after all, very difficult to program a computer using
> >> religious beliefs as a basis for your programming. I tend to view that
> >> as evidence that scientific belief is qualitatively different, since
> >> believing in scientific principles like observation, no-interpretation,
> >> experiment, hypothesiis formation and refutation, does help you program
> >> a computer.
> >
> > Computers were designed using science so it's not surprising you need
> > science to program them. Try using science to make sense of something
> > created using religion or philosophy. Say, the Book of Tao? :-)
> >
> Read " The Dancing Wu Li Masters " by Gary Zukav. It does an excellent job
> of re-enforcing one with the other. It is also the best and most readable
> introduction to physics that I have ever read.
>
> Mike
Agree! "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav is a great
intro into quantum mechanics. One of my 2nd year physics profs
recommended it. A must read for the budding philosopher.
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: .NET is plain .NUTS
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 01:32:15 -0500
kool breeze wrote:
>
> >
> >REPUBLICANS!
> >.RIP It's where *THEY'LL* will be going!
> >
> >This .NET thing is the *WORSE* case of REPUBLICANS attempting to fuck
> >REPUBLICANS I've ever seen in my life.
> >
> >And REST ASSURED, if you're the corporate manager who's just set your
> >company a course on Microsoft's path, REPUBLICANS will blame you for
> >this disaster and they will *FIRE* you.
> >
> >*BANK* on it junior.
>
> This republic of America gave you the right to spout off, the internet
> access to do it on and the free time to do it.
>
> dumbass.
>
> I hate MS and love linux, but you happened to biting the hand that fed
> you.
Actually, I'm not sure what the intent was....but the way I read it
was this: Republicans are interested in COST-EFFECTIVE solutions.
That is to say...they don't just blindly think that everything is
going perfect....they tend to go back, and check to see if the results
are consistant with their initial assumptions...and if there is a
conflict between the two, they adjust their assumptions before
attacking the problem again.
XP and .NET will SERIOUSLY strain the assumption that Mafia$oft
platforms are anywhere close to cost-effective.
Especially when ONE $100 copy of a "professional" grade Linux
distribution can be ***LEGALLY*** loaded onto every machine
at a 1500 desktop facility.
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
