Linux-Advocacy Digest #440, Volume #32 Sat, 24 Feb 01 03:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: NT vs *nix performance (J Sloan)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Charlie Ebert)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (J Sloan)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (J Sloan)
Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop (Tim Hanson)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Martin Ambuhl)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (J Sloan)
Re: Into the abyss... (J Sloan)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (J Sloan)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Brent Pathakis)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. ("Mark Duell")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Hilter Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Hilter Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 06:12:52 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> 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>
If so, shame on the Unix vendors for such poor bang
for the buck. However, a single Unix system will have
a MUCH lower tco than hundreds of windows pcs.
In any event, the picture will change dramatically when
the Linux based results start appearing, as in specweb.
> 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.
It's hilarious that they carefully avoided the specweb
results - I wonder why? could it be that the results
would not support their agenda?
>
> 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.
This is obviously a suspicious study, since the "fastest measured
Unix system" sounds quite slow compared even to my low end
Linux servers - again, it sounds like a report with an agenda, and
carefully avoiding unpleasant facts that might not speak well of the
value proposition of windows as a server.
>
> 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.
And oddly enough, a $6000 Linux server easily outperforms
this suspiciously slow and overpriced "unix system", and also
compares favorably with the $208,000 windows pc server farm.
>
> 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!
Now that's hilarious, and if you believe those obviously
bogus numbers, I've got a bridge I want to sell you, too.
Cheers,
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 06:13:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, J Sloan wrote:
>Jan Johanson wrote:
>
>> given that hotmail isn't a decade old we find our very first problem with
>> this lie.
>> given that the hotmail appliation itself runs on solaris identifies another
>> problem
>> given the fact that there isn't a single BSD box serving web content for
>> hotmail - that they've all been replaced by window 2000 boxes puts the nail
>> in the coffin.
>
>I understand they are phasing in the pee cees gradually
>this time, having learned from their initial disastrous
>attempt to run hotmail on windows nt a few years ago.
>
>AFAIK they are replacing the bsd Unix servers with a
>greater number of more powerful boxes, which they have
>converted to win 2k.
>
>They will have to throw a lot more hardware at the problem
>and watch windows constantly, but it is a marketing victory
>that they have been frantically pursuing for years.
>
>Of course, it is not recommended for any normal company to
>move from Unix to windows, only those with a peculiar agenda
>e.g microsoft, who can now say "hey, we got hotmail running
>on windows pcs", regardless of whether it's a good idea.
>
>jjs
>
The SAD part about this story is this is mainly just an
E-mail service.
If you attempted to do B2B on a massive scale with *ANY*
windows product, it would be a disaster for your company
and a disaster for your career.
E-mail is nothing compared to B2B.
*NOTHING*
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 06:17:30 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> But OK, sounds like someone did a little work already.
> (However, I was under the impression that the part(s) of Windows
> ported to SPARC sat on top of Solaris.)
huh?
You mean the windows emulator, wabi?
or the sunpc, an x86 card which can have
windows installed and interacts with solaris?
Or maybe you mean ie, the "inseparable part of the
windows os", which was ported to solaris with so
much difficulty and poor results?
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 06:25:08 GMT
"Se�n � Donnchadha" wrote:
> This "key point" is completely false, Troll M., and I suspect you know that
> but would rather lie than agree with someone who doesn't want Microsoft
> blown off the face of the planet. Aside from file naming conventions and
> Windows' lack of symbolic link support - at the OS level - DLLs work exactly
> the same way in Windows as shared libraries work in any modern Unix-like OS.
> Two different processes may use two different versions of a given library,
> even if both library versions use the same filename, as long as they reside
> at different filesystem paths.
As much as we all love windows, and want to beleive
the very best about it, we would be dishonest if we do
not own up to the very real phenomenon of "dll hell".
Jup
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 06:27:48 GMT
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> dev null wrote:
> >
> > You guys love the chicken-little thing, don't ya? Why do I think so?
> > Because you bend over, grunt, and splatter this fetid verbal equivalent of a
> > baby's diaper on usenet every couple of months or so. That's why.
> >
> > Be careful what you wish for. How will you advocate, er, I mean who are you
> > going to smear once MS and its 'lusers' are gone?
>
> Whichever asshole comes up next.
>
I don't think there will be another Microsoft, because Linux is
fundamentally changing the way software is seen, as a tool rather than a
product. Others may make money from selling it proprietary, but they
will always live under the spectre that if they decide to monopolize the
channel or produce crummy overpriced products or hijack standards, the
users will do an end-around and come up with something themselves, which
is what the Linux phenomenon is all about.
--
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent
revolution inevitable.
-- John F. Kennedy
------------------------------
From: Martin Ambuhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 06:32:29 GMT
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> I just tried a simple trig thing on my Linux box but the gcc compiler gave me
> some error, despite having math.h added as the libraries. More bizarre, my
> UNIX ISP had exactly the same problem with the same seemingly simple proggie.
...
> For clues, here are the wierd errors:
> ---begin---
> /tmp/cca262191.o: In function 'main':
> /tmp/cca252191.o(.text+0x51): undefined reference to 'cos'
> ---end error---
This is a FAQ. As a good usenet citizen, you looked already, I know.
However, you missed it. Try again.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 06:33:56 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> > Chad, you are helpless - nobody else had any trouble
> > finding the billion dollar references in a matter of seconds.
>
> On other sites.
start and google and you're there in seconds.
> You made several wide-eyed claims about Linux having 20% market share in
> this, 50% marketshare here, etc.
I never mentioned 50%, but I did say that Linux has
a healthy share of the web server market, while you
insist that the Linux share is essentially nonexistent.
> I believe you also claimed that a majority of those Apache virtual
> hosts on NetCraft were run by Linux.
That wasn't me, but I'd imagine a good share of them are.
For instance I worked for a company a few years ago that
had a single Pentium 166 running slackware, and with 30
or so IP addresses on the external ethernet, it was hosting
some 30 web sites. It's fairly common to do that in the Unix
world.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Into the abyss...
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 06:38:40 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> I think Windows does exactly the same as UNIX. In UNIX you can do rm *
> and delete everything. In Windows, you can use Explorer to wipe
> everything, just as easily.
Nope, in Unix there is absolutely no way for a normal
user to do this - in order to do that to a system, you
would need to have obtained root access.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 06:45:48 GMT
nuxx wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > nuxx wrote:
> >
> > > No luck about it. If you apply datacentre type methodologies in design
> and
> > > change control as you would with any Unix server, NT is very reliable.
> Some
> > > Oracle processes tend to leak memory which would eventually cause a
> problem
> > > but they are killed and re-started for cold backup purposes on my
> systems,
> > > so the OS stays up all the time. Recent hardware used is stock Intel
> server
> > > boards with Adaptec hardware RAID. No BSODs, no crashes, nothing
> special.
> >
> > Sorry, we simply have not found this to be the case.
> >
> It's probably best you leave it to people that know what they are doing.
Thankfully, I no longer have to futz around with windows.
I just do Unix these days, and get to watch the MCSEs
trotting down to the server room to reboot nt servers.
In any event, if you think you are qualified, send me your
credentials and I'll be happy to let the nt specialists know
that you have a solution for their daily therapeutic reboots.
jjs
jjs
------------------------------
From: Brent Pathakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 06:58:14 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "robert bronsing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > What facts! You guys haven't presented a SINGLE FACT AT ALL IN THIS
> > > THREAD!
> > >
> > > PROVIDE ONE LINK, THAT'S ALL I ASK!
> > >
> > > -Chad
> >
> > http://www-4.ibm.com/software/is/mp/linux/solazzo.html
> > http://www.internetweek.com/story/INW20001213S0003
> > http://www.zdnet.com/sp/stories/news/0,4538,2637597,00.html
> >
> > Of course, you could find these links yourself at:
> >
> > http://www-4.ibm.com/software/is/mp/linux/news-archive.html
> >
> > Are that enough links for you?
>
> This is merely one link of all the supposed facts that were being
> thrown around.
>
> Besides, none of these links show anything about "$1billion investment"
> all I see is IBM making a desperate attempt to stay in business and
> announcing Linux on all these servers. Nothing about 1 billion.
> Also, I'll believe it when I see it because, so far, several OEMs
> have announced Linux support, but either aren't shipping anything,
> or have them burried in their web site so that no one can buy them.
> Also, their sales of Linux boxes are either zero, or less than
> mentionable.
>
> -Chad
>
>
Ok Chad, copied from the link..
Enterprises are likely to find Linux useful for bigger, more
mission-critical applications next year due in part to a $1 billion
infusion given the technology by IBM.
The company plans to devote that amount to Linux development, marketing and
consulting next year, up from the "several hundreds of millions of dollars"
this year, said Steve Solazzo, vice president of Linux for IBM.
Now, either you can't read or your a complete idioit.
Have a nice day.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 07:08:05 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 23 Feb
2001 21:43:41 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ayende Rahien
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:48:59 +0200
><974ans$lcr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>>> Failing that, we could try to run NT on SPARCs. (Um...there's just
>>> a slight problem with that... :-) )
>>
>>Yes, you would have to convice MS to give you the SPARC port.
>
>Sell, perhaps. (And not the source code, either.)
>Someone then sets up a benchmark and we'll see which is better. :-)
>
>But OK, sounds like someone did a little work already.
>(However, I was under the impression that the part(s) of Windows
>ported to SPARC sat on top of Solaris.)
As far as real life is concerned, this port of Windows to SPARC is
entirely mythical.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 07:11:16 GMT
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 24 Feb 2001
>nuxx wrote:
[...]
>> It's probably best you leave it to people that know what they are doing.
>
>It's always been a source of wonder for me how Windows is so simple and
>user friendly when they try to sell it to you, and requires experts in
>order not to crash, once you have it.
Very well said, Giuliano.
>On the contrary Unix, Linux, AIX etc., are represented as very difficult
>and abstruse, but users who can keep a Linux box running for one year
>without problems are apparently not competent enough to keep a Windows
>box running for a couple of days.
>There's something in this logic which I fail to grasp.
>Could you please clarify it for me?
Alas, it seems almost unnatural not to troll-bait, given the
circumstances.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Mark Duell" <fleacircus.org@mduell>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 07:11:32 GMT
"Richard Heathfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bloody Viking wrote:
> >
> > I just tried a simple trig thing on my Linux box but the gcc compiler
gave me
> > some error, despite having math.h added as the libraries. More bizarre,
my
> > UNIX ISP had exactly the same problem with the same seemingly simple
proggie.
>
> Your question is an FAQ - there's a good answer to be found if you look
> for it. See my sig for the URL.
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield
> "Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
> C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
This link returns a 404 (and a custom one at that!)
> K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
This isnt what he wants/needs.
Cheers,
Mark Duell
:)
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 07:23:01 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 24 Feb 2001 00:35:46
[...]
Amazing how much you can dominate an industry if you monopolize it for
more than ten years from the very start, eh?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 07:50:30 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 23 Feb
2001 21:57:30 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:51:28 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 22 Feb
>> [...]
>>>Sshd might be construed as a wrapper around /bin/login, in a weird
>>>sort of way. However, that's sshd, the daemon side; ssh (the client
>>>side) does not call telnet, nor does sshd call telnetd AFAIK.
>>
>>Ultimately, this is where the issue resides. The sshd has the same
>>relationship with /bin/login as telnetd did, making most uses of ssh a
>>complete and precise substitute (plus encryption) for a telnet session.
>>
>>The funny part is how Chad is going nuts trying to say how "limited" or
>>"archaic" a remote CLI terminal methodology is, and absolutely nobody is
>>taking the bait! ;-)
>
>Of course not, because it's not archaic at all; SSH has a
>near-completely transparent X proxy built-in. If one wants
>a GUI, it's right there. :-) [*]
>
>I'm pretty sure one can even run a window manager "over the wire" (I
>wouldn't want to, because my bandwidth sucks) and get reasonably
>good results.
Ironically, the corresponding idea in the Windows world is a
PCAnywhere-type desktop as Web browsers plug-in! ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:04:29 GMT
In article <976cgt$drc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> : So there are one set of drivers for CUPS and one set for The Gimp... any
> : more applications that ship with drivers for printers? Does any of this
> : sound _wrong_ to anyone?
>
> Yup. It sounds like you got it wrong. The drivers GIMP is using are
> the same drivers everyone else could use if they felt like it, they
> just aren't dumb enough to want to.
I got it wrong?!? Surely you mean Linux Mandrake got it wrong? Or The
Gimp?
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,demon.local
Subject: Re: Hilter Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:00:37 -0500
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> : You've said this before. What's wrong with Godwin? What did he ever do
> :> : to you? Are you under the mistaken apprehension that Godwin's Law is a
> :> : binding rule of netiquette?
> :>
> :>
> :> It isn't, but many uninformed people think that it is, which has the
> :> perverse effect of making it very difficult to discuss and therefore
> :> learn how to prevent the recurrence of crimes similar to Hitler's.
>
> : It's one thing to discuss how to prevent another holocaust ... it's
> : another to call someone a Nazi or compare his politics to Hitler's. This
> : was not a discussion of Nazism or the Holocaust, it was a discussion of
> : what people want to do with other people's information.
>
> There are obvious parallels between Hitler and his crimes, and other
> megalomaniacs and theirs. These don't get discussed, because of
> Godwin's Law, because of the naive belief that Hitler and his crimes
> were somehow unique, and because of the mistaken notion that comparing
> them trivializes the suffering of the victims of Hitler's holocaust.
>
> If you say "Never Again!" and mean it, you have to act like it. You
> have to be willing to remember, and study, and analyze, and sometimes
> set aside preconceived political or cultural notions of superiority or
> any "do them before they do us" mentality. You also have to recognize
> that the parts of human nature that Hitler, Stalin, and other
> practitioners of genocide exploited were not unique to prewar Germany
> or Russia, and could be exploited again under the right set of
Just ask the American Indians....
[And yes, I *AM* a soldier in the US Army...]
> circumstances. And, finally, you have to recognize that in most cases
> genocide and other mass crimes have not been ends in themselves, but
> means to an end - world domination - that many others continue to seek
> to this day, through a variety of means, some of which are far more
> dangerous than others.
>
> Joe
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: "meow" is yet another anonymous coward who does nothing
but write stupid nonsense about his intellectual superiors.
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,demon.local
Subject: Re: Hilter Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:02:08 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <975gng$k69$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams wrote:
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >:> : You've said this before. What's wrong with Godwin? What did he ever do
> >:> : to you? Are you under the mistaken apprehension that Godwin's Law is a
> >:> : binding rule of netiquette?
> >:>
> >:>
> >:> It isn't, but many uninformed people think that it is, which has the
> >:> perverse effect of making it very difficult to discuss and therefore
> >:> learn how to prevent the recurrence of crimes similar to Hitler's.
> >
> >: It's one thing to discuss how to prevent another holocaust ... it's
> >: another to call someone a Nazi or compare his politics to Hitler's. This
> >: was not a discussion of Nazism or the Holocaust, it was a discussion of
> >: what people want to do with other people's information.
> >
> >
> >There are obvious parallels between Hitler and his crimes, and other
> >megalomaniacs and theirs. These don't get discussed, because of
> >Godwin's Law, because of the naive belief that Hitler and his crimes
> >were somehow unique, and because of the mistaken notion that comparing
> >them trivializes the suffering of the victims of Hitler's holocaust.
> >
> >If you say "Never Again!" and mean it, you have to act like it. You
> >have to be willing to remember, and study, and analyze, and sometimes
> >set aside preconceived political or cultural notions of superiority or
> >any "do them before they do us" mentality. You also have to recognize
> >that the parts of human nature that Hitler, Stalin, and other
> >practitioners of genocide exploited were not unique to prewar Germany
> >or Russia, and could be exploited again under the right set of
> >circumstances. And, finally, you have to recognize that in most cases
> >genocide and other mass crimes have not been ends in themselves, but
> >means to an end - world domination - that many others continue to seek
> >to this day, through a variety of means, some of which are far more
> >dangerous than others.
> >
> >
> >Joe
>
> Such as .NET.
And just remember, NET in Russian is pronounced "nyet" ( = "NO")
Sounds like Chevrolet and the Nova in Spanish-speaking countries
NOVA = "no va"
no to go = doesn't go.
>
> --
> Charlie
>
> **DEBIAN** **GNU**
> / / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
> / /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
> /_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
> http://www.debian.org
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: "meow" is yet another anonymous coward who does nothing
but write stupid nonsense about his intellectual superiors.
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
