Linux-Advocacy Digest #436, Volume #32 Fri, 23 Feb 01 19:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: State of linux distros (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs? (Mig)
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American Activities
Committee (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Into the abyss... ("Masha Ku'Inanna")
NT vs *nix performance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Maximum Linux Magazine Is Going Out Of Business Ha Ha Ha ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("B.B.")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Peter Hayes)
Re: Stability of 2.4.1? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Who said NT was stable ! ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("B.B.")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Woofbert)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Woofbert)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Shane Phelps)
Re: The Windows guy. (Shane Phelps)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Shane Phelps)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:13:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:29:37 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>Reefer wrote:
>>
>> Linsux is dead.
>
>That's why it scares Gates, Allchin, and Steve Baaawwwwwllmer.
I can see the marquees now.
Linux.
The OS That Wouldn't Die.
The OS that can install on your machine, coexisting with other
operating systems, and utilize every ounce of power available
from the hardware.
The OS that can do everything Win2k can do, and more. (Except
be proprietary.)
The OS that puts a real computer on your desktop, not some
glorified child's toy with glitzy shadowed mouse pointers
and beautifully-disappearing submenus.
The OS that doesn't cost extra and require a nifty neato fancy
IDE to start developing programs. (Unless one really wants to.)
The OS that scares the shit out of proprietary megalomaniacial
monopolistic types everywhere.
The OS That Bill And Steve Just Can't Kill Even After Trying To
FUD It To Death.
...
Coming soon to a computer near you. :-)
(You think it'll sell? :-) Or am I too late already? )
>
>
>>
>> "dev null" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>> news:9737j1$b6h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Culled somewhere off of www.devx.com this a.m.
>> >
>> > In spite of the fact that Mandrake boasts that it is the hottest Linux
>> > distributor in retail sales, its retail product is a loss leader. SuSE has
>> > laid off two-thirds of its U.S. employees. TurboLinux is cutting back on
>> its
>> > workforce and may soon wed Linuxcare to refocus its efforts onto services.
>> > Stormix, a commercial distributor that based its offering on Debian, has
>> > recently filed for bankruptcy. Corel is getting nowhere with its Linux
>> > distribution. In other words, most Linux distributions, even the ones
>> whose
>> > market share is growing each year, are concluding that they can't make
>> money
>> > selling Linux.....
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------
>> > Wow, get that! Companies sprouting up like weeds, trying to turn a profit
>> on
>> > a free product by adding value only. --dubious value at that. And there
>> is
>> > only SO much value one can add to a linux distro or the penquinistas start
>> > braying like donkeys in heat. See Corel for what can happen when they
>> think
>> > you have 'window-fied' linux!
>> >
>> > I'm STILL wondering how they ever thought that they COULD be viable.
>> > dot com madness, something like mad-cow disease I think.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 18d:03h:40m actually running Linux.
Yes, uptime & wall clock aren't in synch; I don't know why.
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs?
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:14:32 +0100
Edward Rosten wrote:
> Yep. The first binary digital computer was purely mechanical and ran at
> 1Hz. Quite a remarkabe machine, it even did floating point arithmetic. It
> never worked very well (it was built by a single bloke in his parents
> living room) but the later electromechanical versions did work very well.
>
> The guy was an unsung genius.
>
> http://irb.cs.tu-berlin.de/~zuse/Konrad_Zuse/en/Rechner_Z1.html
>
> Look at the other stuff on the site about him too (there are also many
> other sites about him). He invented pipelining as well, not to mention
> the ADC and a host of other things including the first High Level
> Language.
Yes, Konrad Zuse is the man!
He's not so unsung here.. i remenber he was creditted for the first
electric computer and Babbage for the first mechanic when i was studying.
I think americans normally give the credit to an american von Neumann years
later :- )
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Activities Committee
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:21:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Nick Condon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 23 Feb 2001 09:01:32 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>Agreed, you didn't say we should use Microsoft (we could, for instance,
>>use MacOS). But whom would we sue? Linus? The US Government? The
>>corporations selling Linux to China? (Are there any?)
>>
>>And who should sue? I suppose we could cobble up a class-action
>>coalition. Or is this a criminal suit?
>>
>>Any person knowingly contributing to the cause of Open Source
>>might be liable for helping improve the quality of a piece of
>>software that is being (or can be!) used to oppress the people of China.
>>I am one of those people (I have contributed a minor piece ot
>>the Wine project); there are thousands of others.
>>
>>Spot The Flaw *here*.
>>
>
>Absolutely. We can generalise from here, too, we are not confined to Linux
>or even software. For example, do Michael Faraday, Ben Franklin, et al
>share the blame for the existence of electrical torture equipment? Hmm. So
>are there any innocent people? Doesn't look like it, does it?
I hadn't thought of that particular angle, but well spotted. :-)
I think we can even blame the ancient Greeks, who first discovered
electricity -- or at least the fact that rubbed amber can pick up flecks
of lint or hair or papyrus or whatever, perhaps.
(They had steam engines, too -- Hero -- therefore they should be sued
for every person who walked in front of an oncoming train. :-) Of
course, the fact that the ancient Greeks are all dead is a mere detail...)
>--
>Nick
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 18d:04h:51m actually running Linux.
It's a conspiracy of one.
------------------------------
From: "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Into the abyss...
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:26:10 -0500
Reply-To: "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Have you tried Solaris 8. The installation routine etc. is so easy,
> throw in the boot CD, partition, install, boot, very easy and simple,
> and all done through the comfort of a GUI.
>
> IMHO, CDE is awsome, I have GNOME loaded on here, and it is like
> golden-syrup flowing down a hill, aka VERY-SLOW. There is also quite a
> good support setup through www.sun.com/bigadmin that addresses alot of
> the issues a newbie, or solaris-guru may face.
>
> Interms of setting up, as long as you RTFM (Read The Fucking Manual),
> and do EXACTLY was is written, they you computer will humm along with
> out a problem.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
Actually, not yet. I'd like to, but last I knew they had a free download
available after the purchase of a $80 media-kit...
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 00:35:46 +0200
I've been doing some reading on Java when I encountered this article:
http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_24.htm
It's a very interesting article, on a very interesting site. But what really
captured my attention was point three, about scalability.
<Qoute>
...industry standard TPC-C benchmark. This benchmark shows that a $745,000
COM+ system can process more than 56 million transactions per day, a higher
rate than any documented web-based commerce system processes today. In order
to meet this level of scalability with a UNIX system, you will have to spend
at least $2,250,000.
</Qoute>
This is a much discussed topic on this kind of newsgroups, so I would've
ignored it, if it didn't mentioned this as well:
<Qoute>
A web-based benchmark was recently conducted by Doculabs and PCWeek. [6, 7]
This benchmark measured the number of web pages delivered to client browsers
in a web commerce environment and the cost of the underlying hardware and
software for both Microsoft and UNIX platforms. The Doculab report [6] is
informative for any company planning a web commerce system.
If we add together the hardware and software costs of the various platforms
in the Doculabs benchmark, we find that a $208,000 Windows DNA system
delivered 3,500 web pages per second, whereas the fastest measured UNIX
system (a Progress system) delivered only 1,360 web pages per second at a
cost of over $500,000. The average UNIX system cost $594,459 and delivered
1009 pages per second, less than one third the Windows DNA performance at
more than two and a half times the cost.
And these tests were run on NT 4.0. A later, different benchmark run by
PCWeek clocked Windows 2000 at between 25% and 100% faster than Windows NT
4.0 [8]. If these numbers hold true for a Doculabs benchmark scenario, then
we would expect to see a $208,000 Windows 2000 DNA system delivering
anyplace from 4375 to 7000 pages per second, whereas a $594,459 UNIX system
will be straining to deliver one quarter of that.
The Doculabs benchmark predicted that in real-world scenarios, UNIX system
web servers will be able to process over 10,000 concurrent real-world users
while maintaining an acceptable response time, whereas a Microsoft Windows
DNA implementation will handle upwards of 100,000 simultaneous users. Ten
times the number of users for about one third the system cost! Now that's
scalability!
</Qoute>
I followed the trail of URLs and found the following comments:
http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,409114,00.html
"The results show that Microsoft so dominated the test--in terms of price
and performance--that it looks downright embarrassing for the competitors"
http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,409389,00.html
"...its [microsoft] C++-based bookstore was so fast that it was bottlenecked
by the 100M-bps test network."
More information about this can be found here:
http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,409380,00.html
I know that this is quite old(almost 2 years), but is there some new data on
it?
BTW, I also checked tpc.org (new design, nice) and found this:
DYNIX/ptx 4.5.1 Microsoft Internet Information Server 5.0
on http://www.tpc.org/tpcw/results/tpcw_perf_results.asp
How come IIS run on DYNIX?
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:27:52 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Peter
Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes, I think we've come to the conclusion that it's
> specifically the version of Gimp shipped with Mandrake 7.2 is
> broken in this respect.
>
> Peter
Well,
As the one who pointed it out to Ed, I must say this is not
unique to Mandrake. I found the raw option to be present on my
system's Gimp as well (Debian 2.2 woody with Helix Gnome, Gimp
1.2). Mandrake's Gimp is a 1.1.x, so it is not some fault that
got fixed in the beta, it made it to the production release, so
probably the Gimp people have a reason for doing it like this. It
would have been nice if they'd advertise it a little better, or
perhaps I should start RTFM. Does anywhere know where to locate
the Gimp FAQ?
Mart
--
YahDu (Yet another happy Debian user)
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs?
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:47:51 +0000
>> Yep. The first binary digital computer was purely mechanical and ran at
>> 1Hz. Quite a remarkabe machine, it even did floating point arithmetic.
>> It
>> never worked very well (it was built by a single bloke in his parents
>> living room) but the later electromechanical versions did work very
>> well.
>>
>> The guy was an unsung genius.
>>
>> http://irb.cs.tu-berlin.de/~zuse/Konrad_Zuse/en/Rechner_Z1.html
>>
>> Look at the other stuff on the site about him too (there are also many
>> other sites about him). He invented pipelining as well, not to mention
>> the ADC and a host of other things including the first High Level
>> Language.
>
> Yes, Konrad Zuse is the man! He's not so unsung here.. i remenber he
> was creditted for the first electric computer and Babbage for the
> first mechanic when i was studying. I think americans normally give the
> credit to an american von Neumann years later :- )
I'd never heard him mentioned until I had to do an essay on the history
of computing. The man was a genius, pure and simple. Working in isolation
he seems to have duplicated the work of many very inteklligent
individuals. Von Neumann was at least the third person to describe the
`von Neumann' architecture.
Konrad Zuse is credited with the first working mechanical computer and
the first binary comuter and the first electric computer and the first
computer controlled production and the first commercial computer and the
first Turing complete machine and the first HLL and the first ADC and the
first use of floating point and...
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Maximum Linux Magazine Is Going Out Of Business Ha Ha Ha
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:41:43 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Matthew Gardiner"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There will always be obscure/fridge distro's of Linux,
Wow! those must be really cool!
:-)
Mart
--
YahDu (Yet another happy Debian user)
------------------------------
From: "B.B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:09:04 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
@> Sounds like an argument for unarmed police.
@
@You there! Stop! Stop, or I shall say "Stop!" again!
@
@The other week, some Oakland rookie cops shot and killed an undercover
@cop who was holding a car thief at gunpoint.
Police need to spend some time and money investigating (mostly)
non-lethal weapons. It would cut down on this kind of shit.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! [EMAIL PROTECTED] @airmail.net
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:06:15 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:27:52 +0100, "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Peter
> Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, I think we've come to the conclusion that it's
> > specifically the version of Gimp shipped with Mandrake 7.2 is
> > broken in this respect.
> >
> > Peter
> Well,
>
> As the one who pointed it out to Ed, I must say this is not
> unique to Mandrake. I found the raw option to be present on my
> system's Gimp as well (Debian 2.2 woody with Helix Gnome, Gimp
> 1.2). Mandrake's Gimp is a 1.1.x, so it is not some fault that
> got fixed in the beta, it made it to the production release, so
> probably the Gimp people have a reason for doing it like this. It
> would have been nice if they'd advertise it a little better, or
> perhaps I should start RTFM. Does anywhere know where to locate
> the Gimp FAQ?
I ended up compiling GIMP 1.2 from source and it behaves just the same.
I then thought CUPS must be to blame, but from what you say it would seem
to be GIMP, but how is it that some people don't have the problem?
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stability of 2.4.1?
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:05:15 +0600
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> From what I have heard, 2.4.1 had some nasty bugs, you may want to upgrade
> to 2.4.2 which is pretty stable from what I have heard (from the irc
> channels).
Something pre-2.4.2 was giving disk corruption under certain circumstances, so
there's a recommendation to upgrade. Here's all I've heard about it:
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-02-22-002-20-NW-KN
Linus speaking: "The biggest real changes that impact normal users are the two
bugs that could corrupt your harddisk. The IDE driver bug that Russell found
has, to my knowledge, never been shown to happen on anything but his ARM
machine, but for all we know it could be quite bad even on x86. Similarly, the
elevator bug could cause corruption, but probably has not actually bit people
in practice. But both are definitely deadly at least in theory even on
bog-standard common PC hardware."
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who said NT was stable !
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:13:37 +0600
J Sloan wrote:
> The last brute force queso tests I've seen have
> Linux with a very healthy percentage of the web
> server market.
Several months ago Netcraft reported Linux with 30% and all Windows
combined with 29%, even after filtering out placeholder sites. I have
seen articles since then that hint that seem to indicate that the gap is
widening, but unfortunately Netcraft doesn't publish the numbers on
their Web site every month. (Apparently they give out more numbers in
their for-pay reports than they do on their Web site, because you'll see
an article credit a number to Netcraft now and then even when there's
nothing about it on the site.)
Of course, our resident trolls will tell you that only the Fortune 500
sites matter, and nobody uses Linux anyway.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "B.B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:19:03 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@Most any country. Law-abiding citizens are not the ones commiting
@the crimes.
Not necessarily. People exploiting every loophole availble are
technically law-abiding, but they are committing crimes. They just get
off on technicalities. The most common example would be tax evasion.
Also, everybody breaks one law or another at some point. Even if
they're obscure, unenforcable, or forgotten laws. The people are
law-abiding, but all of those crimes do add up to a fairly signifigant
amount.
IOW, everyone's a criminal someone's standards. It's just that most
of us don't give a shit.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! [EMAIL PROTECTED] @airmail.net
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:48:53 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"B.B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> @Most any country. Law-abiding citizens are not the ones commiting
> @the crimes.
>
> Not necessarily. People exploiting every loophole availble are
> technically law-abiding, but they are committing crimes. They just get
> off on technicalities. The most common example would be tax evasion.
Don't confuse tax avoidance and tax evasion. Tax avoidance, which means
using every tax law to your advantage to pay lower taxes, is neither
illegal or immoral. (It is, however, annoying to those who don't know
how to do it.) Tax evasion, meaning to violate tax regulations to pay
lower taxes, is illegal.
> Also, everybody breaks one law or another at some point. Even if
> they're obscure, unenforcable, or forgotten laws. The people are
> law-abiding, but all of those crimes do add up to a fairly signifigant
> amount.
> IOW, everyone's a criminal someone's standards. It's just that most
> of us don't give a shit.
There is also the tendency of congresscritters to pass laws that create
new classes of criminals. For instance, one California Assemblybeing
wantes to make it a crime to leave your kids in the car unattended.
Let's say you pull your car out of the driveway and realize you left
your wallet in your desk. You set the parking brake and dash in to get
it, find it, and dash back out. If it takes longer than sixty seconds
and a little kid was in your car the whole time, you'd be a criminal,
subject to immediate arrest. The cops could then have "probably cause"
to search your car, and Child Protective Services could then take your
kid away from you.
With stupid laws like these, people who think they are law-abiding
citizens become criminals.
--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com> -- http://www.infernosoft.com
"As any discussion of the Macintosh progresses, the likelihood of someone
claiming that the Mac UI was stolen from Xerox approaches 1. At this point,
the thread has degenerated to such an extent that it might as well end."
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:50:47 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"B.B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> @> Sounds like an argument for unarmed police.
> @
> @You there! Stop! Stop, or I shall say "Stop!" again!
> @
> @The other week, some Oakland rookie cops shot and killed an undercover
> @cop who was holding a car thief at gunpoint.
>
> Police need to spend some time and money investigating (mostly)
> non-lethal weapons. It would cut down on this kind of shit.
For the cops to have said, "Freeze! Drop your weapon!" first might have
created an opportunity to afert disaster. Perhaps the two rookies should
have each been partnered with experienced cops instead of each other.
--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com> -- http://www.infernosoft.com
"As any discussion of the Macintosh progresses, the likelihood of someone
claiming that the Mac UI was stolen from Xerox approaches 1. At this point,
the thread has degenerated to such an extent that it might as well end."
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 07:12:15 +1100
Peter da Silva wrote:
>
> In article <fXul6.6132$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You may well be right, but I have some doubts. How do these programs "scan
> > the network stream"? Are you sure they'd be permitted to do this when run
> > under a guest account on an NT-class OS?
>
> Windows 2000 *supposedly* makes this harder, but NT4 has a lot of interfaces
> that aren't protected against local clients.
>
> > You make some potentially valid points, but I still say that the best place
> > to address them is in the platform (Windows/Unix) rather than building
> > another platform to run on top of it (Java applet sandbox).
>
> The best way to address them is to provide a sandbox *and* platform level
> protection. UNIX has multiple layers of protection that can be applied, so
> you'd have to break jail/chroot protection, then filesystem/multiuser
> protection, even if you'd broken out of the application-level sandbox.
>
> --
> `-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
> 'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
> -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Disclaimer: WWFD?
This is an interesting discussion, but it's starting to annoy the neighbours.
I've dropped comp.security.ssh off the list.
Back to our normal programming....
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 10:57:34 +1100
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:11:54 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > [deletia]
> > >> > Any edition of the "dinosaur" book should do.
> > >>
[ snip ]
> >
> > This is a better link (shorter).
> >
> > http://www.bell-labs.com/topic/books/os-book/
> >
>
> Whoops...got my dinosaur computer books mixed up.
No, just confusing dinosaurs and dragons :-)
Dragons are usually better for flamewars.
>
> > >
> > >
> > >See:
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201100886/o/qid=982804266/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/107-8739579-6387762
> >
> > [deletai]
> >
[ sigsnip ]
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:06:27 +1100
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:56:12 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >A troll implies some kind of intelligence (see the jargon file). Chad is
> >simply a net.kook.
>
> How do we get him nominated for KOTM?
>
I thought he did a pretty good job of self-nomination with his Black Knight
impersonation on c.s.s :-)
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| Codem Systems, Inc.
> -| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
