Linux-Advocacy Digest #569, Volume #32 Wed, 28 Feb 01 23:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Hijacking the IP stack (Peter da Silva)
KDE Giant Killer? (anchorite)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Chad Myers")
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: URGENT MESSAGE TO CHAD'S EMPLOYER Was: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Chad Myers")
Yet More Evidence of MS as Antichrist! (WAS: New Microsoft Ad :-) ) (Bloody Viking)
Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... ("Chad Myers")
Re: What the hell is MS thinking? (Bob Hauck)
Re: KDE or DOJ ? (Bob Hauck)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Bloody Viking)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Chad Myers")
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? (J Sloan)
Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship (Terry Porter)
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? (J Sloan)
Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Hijacking the IP stack
Date: 1 Mar 2001 03:02:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Microsoft is to be commended on making use of the best available
> > implementation for a change.
> The problem(it seems to me) is the implication M$ wrote code that they
> didn't.
What, like MS-DOS?
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (anchorite)
Subject: KDE Giant Killer?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:31:43 GMT
Green as grass after a spring sgower in linux but I had no problems
with making KDE do everything I wanted.
Now if the pppd was as easy.....and Lucents drivers would work on my
ol dell.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:20:40 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:34:17 GMT
> <JXVm6.70819$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> >in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Shane Phelps
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote
> >> on Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:18:22 +1100
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >[ snip ]
> >> >
> >> >Come on gents, let's stop bothering the nice people on css now that this
> >> >thread has strayed way off-topic.
> >> >
> >> >They were nice enough to give Chad a Black Knight job, so let's not
> >> >bother them any more.
> >>
> >> Uh...dumb question, but what the heck is a "Black Knight" job? :-)
> >
> >Well, I don't know what the "technical" definition is, but the
> >practical application of it was to ignore all facts, insult anyone
> >who raises concerns about their precious and "flawed" security joke,
> >and then continue to flame them whenever they raise these concerns
> >again.
>
> Well, it would be nice if you had substantive backup for your claim
> that SSH1 has security flaws. Do you have a CERT advisory handy?
> Or even a webpage detailing the interview with the developer of
> the SSH1 code where he calls it insecure?
I posted three vulnerabilities from this month, and one from
last month.
I also quoted (and posted the URL) of the email as posted on Slashdot
from one of the creators/owners (I guess) of SSH.com who was asking
OpenSSH to cease and decist using the "SSH" name because they
still use the "fundamentally flawed" SSH1 protocol. The "fund.."
term was an actual term he used.
My posts and facts were met with personal insults and immature
behavior by developers for OpenSSH themselves.
> (And then there's the little issue as to how NT's implementation
> of security [*] -- I don't know if they use SSL, TLS, or what -- is
> provably hack-proof. ["It hasn't been hacked yet" does NOT count.])
1.) We're not talking about NT
2.) We're talking about SSH in comparison with other "trusted" security
products. For example, a good comparison would be SSH to PPTP. Yes,
PPTP has many flaws. Microsoft has a.) acknowledged this and has
posted many advisories and patches to correct the situation and
b.) has discouraged the use of PPTP in favor of IPSec. In fact, it's
difficult to set up a Win2K PPTP server as Win2K warns you that
IPSec is better. SSH.com has done the bigger thing as well and has
developed a better protocol (SSH2) and discontinued the use of SSH1.
OpenSSH, however, sees fit to still ship the "fundamentally flawed"
SSH1 protocol and seems to laugh in the face of anyone that warns them
not to, including SSH.com themselves, and their lawyers.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:37:11 GMT
In article <97k814$a5r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>Personally, I prefer Solaris because it has co-herancy and consistancy
>between applications, the example would be the copy and paste example
>(posted a while back), I can copy, cut, paste etc with out a problem, vs.
>Linux un-consistant short cut keys which changes in each application, and
>yes I know I am posting using Windows 2000 using LookOut! Express 5 (can't
>be forked installing and alernative one) because I am waiting for my SUN
>Machine to arrive (hopefully by next week).
>
Frankly, this is true of the Windows world also.
There is no consistent set of keys you use to cut and paste their
either. Not truely consistent.
The only way you achieve this is to run all Microsoft products,
which companies rarely do.
It would be like running all KDE made or all GNOME made products.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: URGENT MESSAGE TO CHAD'S EMPLOYER Was: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:22:40 GMT
"Ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:97ja2v$ogg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I thank God every day that I don't have to use that box as my desktop
> > because the state of Unix and Linux is so poor, I would have to shoot
> > myself if I did.
>
> Please, whoever employs Chad, remove his windows machine this instant and
> make him use Solaris/CDE.
>
> -Ed
Let the record show the kind of immature childish assholes I attempt to
engage in an intelligent debate with.
-c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Yet More Evidence of MS as Antichrist! (WAS: New Microsoft Ad :-) )
Date: 1 Mar 2001 03:38:35 GMT
Aaron Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Peter Hayes wrote:
: > Are you saying you have a cluster of machines that you reboot individually,
: > but collectively they present 99.999% uptime to the outside world?
: FIVE LoseDOS machines to duplicate the availability of ONE Linux machine.
: [And he STILL can't provide the same level of services as the ONE Linux machine].
The MS-Scam(tm) is that the memory leaks are on purpose so companies have to
build clusters so as to sell all 5 copies of NT "Server". Meanwhile, the
entire cluster makes hardware vendors rich as well, yet one Linux can remain
awake for years.
A single NT Server box if used for a 24/7 server attempt fails before a severe
insomniac finally falls asleep during the week... and the NT will take longer
to reinstall than it takes for that same insomniac to reawaken. Utterly
pathetic. In the cluster therefore, the machines engage in a silicon
equivalent of shift work as like people who need sleep to essentially run
Defrag by dreaming, the NT boxes need to "sleep" lest the memory leak causes
them to BSOD.
Another tantalising fact is that kids raised by animals, feral kids, exhibit
characteristics of animals and not developing language or other nominally
human traits, as though the "animal OS" is a "DOS" in humans with language and
culture actually being an overlay like Windows 9*. While feral kids are super
rare, the ancient Egyptians tried an experiment with placing 2 babies in a
room and all caregivers were ordered to not say a word. The intent was to find
out the primordial language but instead found "AnimalDOS" by accident.
This raises a bizarre possibility. While the VMS inventor works on NT,
Microsoft and Bill Gates could in fact be the Antichrist, where Bill Gates
stole sourcecode for the kernel of the OS that runs on animal brains
(including ours as a "DOS") and animals without sleep go insane due to
memory leaks. BTW, if an animal is deprived of all sleep long enough, it
dies, nature's equivalent of a BSOD, but for which there is no reinstall.
If the Seattle quake shook up the "campus" of the potential Antichrist, it
could mean a god exists and the ol' god/devil war is on.
--
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: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:23:33 GMT
"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:uO9n6.15904$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Since the word MONOPOLY was actually formed during the STANDARD OIL
> > breakup.
>
> Actually, it wasn't.
>
> The word monopoly dates from the mid 16th century, and comes to English via
> the Latin word monopolium, which in turn derives from the Greek monopolion,
> "right of exclusive sale," which came from the Greek polein, "to sell."
> Needless to say, this predates Standard Oil.
>
> Do you ever research anything, Charlie? It took me less time to find the
> etymology of monopoly than it took you to write that sentence.
Charlie and facts are far seperated.
-c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: What the hell is MS thinking?
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:43:43 GMT
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:07:06 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:05:54 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>> > Why do you need plug-n-play? You don't put adapters in your servers?
>> > No SCSI cards? No Tape Backups? No Modems or Network Cards?
>>
>> I don't put ISA SCSI or network cards in my servers (except the odd 486
>> firewall box). Don't need no steenking plug-n-pray with PCI.
>
> PnP was actually designed for PCI, and was later adapted to ISA, which
> is why it's called ISA PnP to differentiate between them.
Sounds like a marketing usage. PCI configuration and ISA PnP have very
little in common other than that. PCI configuration is just part of the
PCI spec and doesn't have a special name. It was not added on later,
whereas some ISA devices support an add-on scheme called "Plug and Play"
that attempts to bring the functionality of PCI configuration to ISA.
Sometimes it even works.
> Hell, PnP includes external devices, such as external modems, USB,
> FireWire devices, etc...
Only in a general sense, to quote p3.1 of the HOWTO you pointed to:
"The standard PCI (and not PnP) specifications do the same for
the PCI bus."
"Since the PCI bus specifications don't use the term PnP it's not clear
whether or not the PCI bus should be called PnP (but it supports in
hardware what today is called PnP)."
IOW, PCI has an auto-configuration scheme which is not called PnP in the
PCI spec. I feel comfortable in asserting that the PCIMG would not want
to be associated with ISA PnP in any way, being as their scheme actually
works.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: KDE or DOJ ?
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:43:44 GMT
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:15:05 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you used KDE extensively? It's not bad, but it's not the
> Explorer killer that you seem to think it is. It's still way to
> complicated to configure (have you actually tried looking through the
> configuration settings?)
Is this one of those things, like your criticism of OS/2, whereby one
system having features or options that another doesn't is a strike
against the first on the grounds of it being "too complicated"?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: 1 Mar 2001 03:45:04 GMT
. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Unscheduled downtime... I doubt there are many NT machines out there
: that don't need their 'maintenance reboot'.
Just like animals and people need to sleep, the natural "maintenance reboot".
At least nature provided for Defrag during down time in the form of dreams.
The funny part is how animals, like NT machines, go haywire and eventually die
when not allowed the "maintenance reboot". As far as my Linux box, the only
downtime it ever expierences is when I issue the command to wrap up to either
use 95 briefly or mess with hardware. Linux NEVER crashes unless you really
fuck up.
--
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: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:31:20 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> IBM most certainly does sell Thinkpads pre-loaded with Linux. Here is
> a link, but it is very long so if it does not wrap/load correctly go
> to ibm.com/shop/thinkpads/spec sheets/A and T Series Thinkpads and you
> will see some of them come pre-loaded with Caldera 2.4
>
>
http://www5.pc.ibm.com/us/me.nsf/335a6c936e79bb9f8525676400687b2f/cb50b7edeb405d
96852569bd0077889b?OpenDocument
Ok. (the link worked, thank you).
After browsing for what seemed like an eternity (because their site is
so horribly slow)
I saw one about 3/4 down the "Compare models" page that showed a
single model (T21) with "Caldera eLinux" preinstalled.
Thank you.
-Chad
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:03:26 GMT, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <mpVm6.70808$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > This is contrary to the press release that came out earlier in 2000 from
> >> > IBM+Microsoft that said that IBM was going to be deploying Win2K Pro to
> >> > thousands of their desktops.
> >> >
> >> > I can find the URL, I suppose, if you don't believe me.
> >> >
> >> > I never heard anything about the server side, but IBM has a "dog food"
> >> > policy, so it wouldn't suprise me if they didn't allow anything other
> >> > than their own software on the servers.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It is true that new Thinkpads have W2K installed by default. But Linux
> >> is being installed on many of those Thinkpads as we speak. And many
> >> people I know are happy to get rid of Windows. Just because Windows
> >> comes pre-installed doesn't mean it is actually used.
> >
> >We were talking about IBM using or not using Win2K internally and
> >were ignoring the OEM for the moment, but since you decided to change
> >the subject...
> >
> >Could you please show us where you can get Linux installed on a Thinkpad?
> >I'm browsing IBM's online commerce site and I'm browsing the Thinkpads
> >(weird, I don't see many "Buy" buttons, it's almost like they don't
> >want you to buy them... leave it to IBM..). I can't seem to find ANY
> >mention of linux whatsoever.
> >
> >I'm even browsing the bargain laptops and I come across this:
> >
>
>http://commerce.www.ibm.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce/CategoryDisplay?cgrfnbr=2059061&c
n
> >trfnbr=1&cgmenbr=1&cntry=840&lang=en_US
> >(URL possibly wrapped)
> >
> >And at the bottom, it talks about Win2K a lot, and then I see this
> >tidbit of information:
> >
> >"IBM recommends Windows 2000 Professional for business"
> >
> >Again, I see no mention of Linux anywhere.
> >
> >Here I finally find a Laptop with an "add to cart" button.
> >I choose customize to see if I can change the OS, and low and behold,
>
>http://commerce.www.ibm.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=1926569&cn
t
> >rfnbr=1&prmenbr=1&cntry=840&lang=en_US&shoptype=D
> >(URL possibly wrapped)
> >
> >No choice in OS.
> >
> >Where is Linux?
> >
> >-Chad
> >
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:47:19 GMT
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> Personally, I prefer Solaris because it has co-herancy and consistancy
> between applications, the example would be the copy and paste example
> (posted a while back), I can copy, cut, paste etc with out a problem, vs.
> Linux un-consistant short cut keys which changes in each application, and
> yes I know I am posting using Windows 2000 using LookOut! Express 5 (can't
> be forked installing and alernative one) because I am waiting for my SUN
> Machine to arrive (hopefully by next week).
I used Solaris on the desktop for about a year and a half.
I'm using Linux now, by choice.
BTW I have no problem with "left mouse button to copy",
"middle mouse button to paste" - been doing it for years,
don't know of any place it doesn't work.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 01 Mar 2001 03:45:42 GMT
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:42:58 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> * MS Outlook
>> What's the fuss with this app ?
>> Is it the 'favorites' list that slips to the left and dissapears?
>> Perhaps its the ease with which, your Windows pc can become virii ridden?
>>
>> I submit that EXMH is a capable GUI emailer that offers many advanced
>> facilities, that 'Outhouse Distress' does not.
^^^^^^ I should have said 'Outlook'.
>
>You seem to be confusing Outlook with Outlook Express.
You're right EF I was.
> They are entirely
>different apps. OE doesn't have scripting support, so it can't be used like
>Outlook to mail viruses to people in your address book. Outlook is much
>more than just a mail client. It's a PIM. Scheduling, Task Management,
>Messaging, etc.. very slick.
Ahh ok, thanks for pointing that out, we only have Outlook Express here on
my fiancee's Win98 box.
I can see why Outlook would be usefull among those that have used it for
a extended period.
> Evolution is coming along though.
In the Linux world, we tend to use seperate apps for the above functionality,
as large monoliths are contary to the Unix philosophy (in general).
>
>
>
>
Terry
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:52:08 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> FreeBSD and OpenBSD are quite a bit more secure than Linux due to many
> process they adoped quite a while ago. Buffer overruns are a rarity, and
> almost always in a port rather than the core OS.
True of OpenBSD, not so true of FreeBSD.
> FreeBSD also has what is considered to be the most robust and efficient
> TCP/IP stack implementation as well.
It is a reference standard.
> FreeBSD is consistent, and easy to use. Linux is splintered into several
> types of distributsions:
Red Hat Linux is consistent, and easy to use. BSD is splintered into
several types of distributions:
netbsd
freebsd
openbsd
bsdi
....
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:52:27 GMT
In article <nEhn6.676$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The BELL comapanies became companies BECAUSE they had no regulatory
>> agency to govern them. You are totally wrong.
>
>Actually, they did have regulatory bodies governing them. Most states have
>Public Utility Commissions that govern public utilities.
>
Nobody had athority over Ma Bell. This was the issue.
They would lie to the late 60's established boards.
Before the 60's there was no regulating body in any
state. It was actually in 1958 when the first court
action was taken to start the eventual breakup of
the phone company.
>> They were NEVER granted a MONOPOLY.
>
>Indeed they were.
>
No they were not. Your getting their trial arguments
confused with reality.
They were never granted a Monopoly status.
Please.
It was their tactic in the 1970's to argue this
point in their appeals. This was never an
established fact.
>> No company has ever been GRANTED a MONOPOLY.
>
>Not true.
>
Is true.
>> The term MONOPOLY is a legal term assigned companies who've violated
>> the publics trust.
>
>Hmm.. Black's law dictionary (pretty much the final word in definitions in
>the law world) states:
>
>legal monopoly
> The exclusive right granted by government to business to provide utility
>services that are, in turn, regulated by the government
>
>http://www.lawoffice.com/portal/index.jsp?pageID=consumer1&nav=Home&subnav=n
>ull&dcp=blacks_definition.jsp&load=false&path=\www\Dictionary\Dictionary10\B
>LD19703_I332C7504C9EF4C9D83E9BA7F83D09B4E.xml
>
If you'd read the half dozen links I've made, you'll
see it was the Judicial system which put the term
for the penalty in the books after the Standard Oil
breakup occured.
>> Please read the legal definition for the term MONOPOLY I've posted
>> a half dozen times on this thread.
>
>And posted wrongly.
>
How do you post a link wrongly Erik?
Are you saying the 6 links I've posted are crap?
Is this going to be another EF against the world night?
>> MONOPOLY power is assigned to those companies who have violated public
>> trust in the marketplace.
>
>Yes. But that is not the only way the term is used.
>
Now wait a minute. Hold the phone here.
You just finished telling me I was full of shit.
Now your telling me that I wasn't.
Forget the fact that there is a game called Monopoly.
You just said in the previous paragraph that I posted
incorrectly.
I said the definition of the term Monopoly was indeed
a penalty term set forth by the court system back in the
1800's in the U.S. VS Standard Oil Company.
It's how the term got established in this country after
the word had been dead for centuries. It wasn't even
in Websters until almost the turn of the century.
Nobody even knew what the term ment in the 1800's until
the Standard Oil trial happened.
The papers debated for months as to the meaning
of the term Monopoly as nobody had ever heard it before.
In this country the term was first used to describe
Standard Oil and it's effect on the American Oil
industry and Rail Road industry. And that is because
the courts established legal means of using that term.
That term isn't a generic term you can just throw around
like "WAZUP".
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
