Linux-Advocacy Digest #607, Volume #33 Sat, 14 Apr 01 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a (Brent R)
Re: Why Bill Gates Is Ramming His Thick Meaty Cock Up Torvald's Weak Mincing Ass
(The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: hmm getting tired of this! (Brent R)
Re: Article: Windows XP won't support USB 2.0 (Craig Kelley)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Microsoft: Closed source is more secure (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Something cool in gcc (Craig Kelley)
Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis (Brent R)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Has Linux anything to offer ? (Karel Jansens)
Re: Fun With Old Laptops. (: (Karel Jansens)
Re: hmm getting tired of this! (Karel Jansens)
Re: Something cool in gcc (Craig Kelley)
Re: NT kiddies, don't try this at home (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Big Brother Billy does it again! (Ed Allen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:31:40 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Brent R wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > > > ALL newsreader software that has an ID string has it embedded
> > > > > > > > > > within the source code. It's a simple matter or editing it with
> > > > > > > > > > vi and running make to disguise both the newsreader and the OS.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And since on Linux...you have the source code....
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Well, I'll leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hey fuck head - yea you, dildo breath.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Reply to this message, but change the header to indicate you are
> > > > > > posting on
> > > > > > > > > a Mac instead.
> > > > > > > > > Should be effortless for a l33t programmer like yourself.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you can do that I'll believe a tiny fraction of what you say.
> > > > > > > > > If you cannot or will not that you are a fucking liar and we've
> > > > all
> > > > > > known it
> > > > > > > > > forever.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > JJ, go to ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/source/
> > > > > > > > and download one of the tar.gz files yourself.
> > > > > > > > Oh, you might not know how to unpack it, so go ahead
> > > > > > > > and download the ZIP version instead.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It unpacks to only about 22 Mb of code and text, so you should
> > > > > > > > find it effortless to track down what you're looking for, JJ.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Grep is your friend.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And I see you failed to do as I challenged. You are a liar.
> > > > >
> > > > > I see that you failed to JUMP as I challenged. You are a liar.
> > > >
> > > > And you CONTINUE to prove you are a useless waste of skin...
> > >
> > > I have absolutely NOTHING to gain from recompiling my code for
> > > a SINGLE post just to satisfy your inane request....especially
> > > since THREE other people have demonstrated already how easy it is
> > > to do.
> > >
> > > now, be a good little twit and FUCK OFF.
> >
> > Sorry Aaron, until you prove that you can post in something other than
> > Windows 98 we're just not going to believe you.
>
> Since anybody can just telnet directly to the nntp port (port 119),
> you can't ***PROVE**** a damned thing by a Usenet post.
>
> Which was the whole point of the exercise, you ignorant git.
No I think the point that we are raising is that we don't believe you
are at all competent with UNIX or computers, and won't until you impress
us with a non-Windows header.
Again I must ask:
> > Look at this objectively, why should we believe you?
--
- Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.hackers.malicious
Subject: Re: Why Bill Gates Is Ramming His Thick Meaty Cock Up Torvald's Weak Mincing
Ass
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:34:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kelsey Bjarnason
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 14 Apr 2001 04:03:01 GMT
<VZPB6.1982$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[snip]
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message
>>
>> I can't say Bill Gates is personally responsible for all this, any
>> more than Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin was responsible for all
>> atrocities conducted within their respective regimes. However, they
>> might bear general responsibility.
>
>Isn't this where Godwin's Law steps in? :)
Not necessarily; I think it's only an issue if one calls one's
debating opponent a Nazi or something. Since I haven't done that,
it doesn't apply. :-)
However, I do wonder. The National Socialist system was predicated
on a lot of things; one of them was the utter collapse of the Weimar
Republic and the economic system, and the people, for whatever reason,
needed a convenient scapegoat. Jews were perfect for that, apparently.
Had the individual people voting for Hitler protested more loudly
at some point -- but admittedly, at what point? -- I don't know if
history would have been different or not, but I do wonder. It's not
clear I'll ever know; the "what if" game is nice to play but probably
won't clarify too many things. :-)
Same for Microsoft and the buyers of Windows software. At least, IMO.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 8d:08h:22m actually running Linux.
>>> Make Signatures Fast! <<<
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 14 Apr 2001 17:35:48 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12 Apr 2001 23:05:57 GMT, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Said Joseph T. Adams in alt.destroy.microsoft on 12 Apr 2001 09:44:09
>:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Russianbear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>
>:>: Bah - If there is a God he is no better than a common dictator and there is
>:>: NO reason at all to worship him. Anyone who says live by my rules or be
>:>: punished with death or eternal damnation is an asshole.
>:>
>:>
>:>First of all, God has only two main rules, according to Jesus. First
>:>is to love Him. Second is to love your neighbor.
>:>
>:>I don't think those are unreasonable requests.
>
>: Says who? According to God and Jesus (according to those who say
>: 'according to God and Jesus'), there were plenty of other rules, and
>: less reasonable requests.
>
>
>Those are details. They're there to explain exactly what is meant by
>loving God and loving your neighbor.
How does eating fish on fridays connect to loving my neighbour?
--
Roberto Alsina (who is not going to ask about how not fucking women
who want to do it implies love of God)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 14 Apr 2001 17:36:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:46:37 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:00:31 GMT;
>>"Roberto Alsina"
>>
>>> It doesn't surprise me at all that you are unclear that murder now and
>>> murder three thousand years ago don't mean the same thing.
>>
>>ROFLMAO!!!!
>
>What's funny?
Perhaps murder is funny to him.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: hmm getting tired of this!
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:38:13 GMT
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> Or a George dwebya Bush put it, "so what about global warming! if it
> gets a little hot, I'll just open a window". Most people in NZ drive
> Japanese cars like Nissans and Mazdas that run on the smell of an oily
> rag. Two alternative fuels that should be considered are LPG and CNG.
> Both of them only give off Carbon Dioxide, and are in pletiful supply.
> Also, removing oil heating in housing would reduce emissions. Geeze, I
> don't know one person in NZ who uses oil heating, most use either
> electricity or Natural Gas.
Yeah it gets pretty cold in NZ huh?
Oil heat is by far the best option in the States... gas and electric are
way too expensive. Electric is notoriously expensive and inefficient...
not to mention just as polluting especially since the plants in my area
are nuclear (not actively polluting but there is potential for a
disaster). So... it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking
about.
<snip crap>
--
- Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Article: Windows XP won't support USB 2.0
Date: 14 Apr 2001 11:39:31 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:13:21 -0400
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Tim Kelley wrote:
> >>
> >> Dave Martel wrote:
> >>
> >> This is actually good news. USB2 is inferior to firewire as is SCSI.
> >>
> >> They will support usb 1, and there are no usb 2 devices yet anyway.
> >>
> >> USB 2.0 is intels ploy to kill firewire, which is clearly superior.
> >> It doesn't have anything to do with USB 1.0
> >>
> >> Hopefully firewire will kill both scsi, usb 1, and usb 2, IDE, floppy and
> >> parallel ports in one stroke. Firewire is something we really need.
> >
> >Firewire does NOT replace SCSI.
> >
> >400 Mbits/second is only 50 MBytes/second.
> >
> >SCSI is at 160 MBytes/second and climbing.
>
> Damn.
>
> I need a new system. :-)
You can get SCSI controllers and drives that do 320MB/s now. I'm not
sure if it's standardized yet, though.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 14 Apr 2001 17:40:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> >> Indeed. The arguments used to convince someone are the arguments that
>> >> convince HIM, not the arguments that convince ME.
>> >
>> >Doesn't appear as if you've done much convincing here.
>>
>> Occasional setbacks don't make the tactic invalid.
>>
>> >Your statement above indicates you aren't interested in the truth.
>>
>> Actually, that's absolutely neutral to my interest in the truth.
>> If I want people to accept the truth, and those people can
>> be easily convinced by appeal to an authority they deem infallible,
>> that's just the short path to the truth.
>>
>> > It indicates you are only
>> >interested in proselytize others to your side even if you know your
>> >arguments are not true, just so long as those arguments are effective.
>>
>> I will use economic arguments to convince the cheap, I will use
>> ethical arguments to convince the ethical, I will use logical
>> arguments to convince the rational, and yes, I will use
>> biblical arguments to convince the biblethumpers.
>>
>> To a bible follower, I would be convincing him using the revealed
>> word of god. So what?
>
>
>So you believe the ends justify the means.
No, I believe THAT end justifies THAT mean. You can�t induce
the general from the specific like that.
>> >In another post you argued that "power makes right" or "power is right"
>was
>> >incorrect.
>>
>> Indeed.
>
>That'd make you a hypocrite.
No.
>> > Yet you exercise the belief that "the ends justify the means" or
>> >the "prostylite justifies the lie".
>>
>> a) Both things are not the same
>> b) Where did I lie, dear?
>
>Would you state something you did not believe to be true "as an argument
>used to convince someone" since those "are the arguments that
>convince HIM"? If so you are a hypocrite as well as a liar.
I would state something I don�t know to be false.
>You used Exodus 20:13 as an argument to convince. Do you believe the Bible?
>If not, you are a hypocrite.
I don�t know its truthfulness. If the guy believes, why should I convince
him? I am not a missionary. Do you go around in christmas telling all kids
Santa doesn�t exist, and showing satellite pictures of the north pole?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Microsoft: Closed source is more secure
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:43:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, David Utidjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:00:29 +0400
<9b9ome$r22$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ray Chason"
>
>> Ah yes, extensive testing, which is why such glaring boners as the
>> ILOVEYOU/Melissa vulnerability got out the door.
>
>I think those vulnerabilities were "designed in"... aren't they embedded
>VB scripts in email?
Worse.
They're a result of Outlook throwing the problem "over the wall".
Something called the Shell (I don't know the details) executes
the program, and does so unquestioning.
The same thing would happen on Unix if one were to decode a
uuencoded virus, save the resulting executable in a file,
chmod +x that file, then execute it via its shell (usually /bin/sh
or /bin/csh). There are two important differences:
[1] decoding the virus using Netscape is trivial, but most text-based
mail readers such as elm and pine don't automatically decode
virii.
[2] execution of the file will result in damage only to those files
owned by the user; the system remains relatively unaffected unless
that user happens to be root.
>If they are then... I am sure MS did extensive
>testing to make sure that VB works well with Outlook and all their other
>apps. Windows will, as long as they allow the simple opening of an email
>to execute arbitrary attached code, allwyas have a security problem by
>design. There are other problems but the email viruses seem to get the
>most press recently.
Well, they did the most damage. :-) Something about the popularity
of a certain operating system....
>
>-DU-...etc...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 8d:08h:29m actually running Linux.
All hail the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh)!
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something cool in gcc
Date: 14 Apr 2001 11:43:55 -0600
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I did something in gcc, that I thought would make the compiler barf, to prove a
> point. Instead of proving my point it would not work, it worked. Wow! this is a
> great feature of gcc.
>
> 1 #include <unistd.h>
> 2 #include <string.h>
> 3 #include <stdio.h>
> 4 void function(char *str1, char *str2)
> 5 {
> 6 int cb = strlen(str1)+strlen(str2)+1;
> 7 char str[cb];
> 8 strcpy(str,str1);
> 9 strcat(str,str2);
> 10 printf("%s\n", str);
> 11 }
>
> It isn't standard C/C++ but it could certainly save a malloc or two here and
> there.
That's legal C++ code, but gcc should balk with the --pedantic flag.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:44:26 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> >
> > WesTralia wrote:
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> You're making the mistaken assumption that EVERY hacker is supposedly
> > >> an uber-hacker.
> > >>
> > >> Overestimating your opponents is as pointless as underestimating your
> > >> opponents. When you over-estimate your opponent's abilities, you
> > >> just give in, because you convince yourself that resistance is useless.
> > >>
> > >> This is why the army, although thermal imaging is available, STILL
> > >> camoflauges all equipment, because only SOME opponents have thermal
> > >> vision equipment.
> > >>
> > Well, Aaron, I can still see your rantings because they are posted by
> > others.
> >
> > I will type now very slowly, so that even you can understand:
>
> No need. I read at over 500 words/minute.
Poorly I might add. You will generally respond to a lengthy post with a
short sentence that totally fails to grasp the subject.
--
- Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 14 Apr 2001 17:46:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin"
>
>> >The truer translation is "You shall not murder". We've been through
>this.
>>
>> I thought it was "you shall not slay." How do you know which it is?
>
>Take your pick. Killing in war is neither illegal, unethical, nor immoral.
And here�s something, in your own words that may clear why you are full
of odorous remainders of the digestive process:
"killing in war is not illegal".
a) That is not true in general
b) That requires some standard: "law" against which it can be declared
"legal" does it not?
In 3000BC, the standard included massive rape of the women of the defeated
and mass sacrifices of the defeated soldiers.
Perhaps you are saying that since that was not "illegal", "unethical"
or "immoral" (the same arguments apply to moral and ethics) at the
time, it should still be common practice?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Has Linux anything to offer ?
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 15:00:01 +0000
Tim Hanson wrote:
>
>
> I think 7.0 was the first to come up with DVD, and they included it in
> the box with the seven CDs. Before installing 7.1 I got a DVD just for
> this reason, and I'm really glad I did. Now I just leave the DVD in the
> drive - no more CD swapping when I want to install or uninstall
> something.
Are you certain about 7.0 being the first SuSE distro that included a
DVD? I wrote IIRC because I don't own a DVD and I only ever got the demo
version of 6.4, but ISTR that a big fuss was made over the fact that
SuSE had the audacity to include a DVD in their distro.
It's no big deal I guess, but I like to keep track of those early
symptoms of Alzheimer <G>.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fun With Old Laptops. (:
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 15:04:47 +0000
Ray Chason wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
>
> >
> >Ray Chason ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> >: A couple of weeks ago I sprung for a TI Travelmate 4000. 486DX2/40,
> >: 8 MB RAM, 200 MB disk, $75. I installed the A and N disk sets from
> >: Slackware 7.0 and now I have a Linux laptop. (I had to leave out
> >: most of the N9 disk because it wouldn't fit on a floppy; just Apache,
> >: BIND, Samba, and INN, nothing that I actually needed.)
> >
> >Since I don't know what PCMCIA network card to try, I bought a null modem cord
> >and played around until I found a way to transfer files. Sure enough I did. On
> >the Linux box I use mgetty at the command line to redirect the console to the
> >term proggie.
>
> Does your terminal program support X/Y/Zmodem? If so, check out the
> rz and sz programs.
>
> Yet another way, and faster, is to use parallel ports. Go to Best Buy
> or CompUSA or the local equivalent and look for a "laplink cable"; I
> got one for about US$11.
>
> See the PLIP mini-HOWTO for instructions on setting this up. One
> important thing the PLIP mini-HOWTO doesn't say is that the parallel
> ports on both computers *must* be configured to use interrupts, both
> in the hardware and at the parport_pc module. The plip module will
> refuse to load on a port that uses polled I/O.
>
> I tried this between my laptop and an old 386SX that I dragged out of
> my closet (my main box doesn't have a free parallel port). I was
> able to copy a large tarball over NFS at about 12000 bytes per second,
> which can't hold a candle to Ethernet but is still faster than serial.
> That's using a unidirectional port at the 386SX; if both computers have
> bidirectional ports, PLIP may be even faster.
>
Can you use PLIP if one of the machines does not run linux? (which was,
I gather, the reason for using serial transfer)
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: hmm getting tired of this!
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 15:22:47 +0000
Darin Johnson wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Anybody who claims to have "proved" Global warming is a fraud.
>
> And anyone who claims it doesn't exist is also a fraud! Both sides
> should have lots of fraudness in common.
As far as I can tell, global warming is indeed a fact.
As to what _causes_ it, a whole lot of BS-sing is going on. [*]
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
[*] "Nobody knows," is the right answer, but you don't get research
grants for such statements.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something cool in gcc
Date: 14 Apr 2001 11:49:24 -0600
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
> > Or it was actually compiled as C code and gcc is trying to support C99
> > features. Note the OP said "C/C++" - some mythical language nobody's ever
> > heard of - but it sure as hell _looks_ like C code, not C++ code.
>
> It amazes me that people draw such a distinction between C++ from C.
>
> function(char *str)
> {
> printf("%s\n", str);
> }
>
> The above function is perfectly valid C++ code. It is also perfectly valid C
> code.
>
> typedef struct _stuff
> {
> int a;
> int b;
> char datum[1];
> }STUFF, *PSTUFF;
>
> The above structure definition is perfectly valid in C and C++.
>
> Aside from some very obscure differences, C++ is a superset of C. So
> the statement, saying "C/C++" is perfectly valid when discussing
> features common to both. One would not use "C/C++" when discussing
> classes.
There are a few C semantics that won't compile with a C++ compiler --
so it isn't a strict superset. C++ enforces more type checking
(defining printf(...) comes to mind).
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: NT kiddies, don't try this at home
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:49:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Paolo Ciambotti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:47:09 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "The Ghost
>In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snip]
>>>From the original article on TechWeb -
>>>
>>>"[...] although missing for four years, hasn't missed a packet in all
>>>that time."
>>>
>>>Sounds like it was working to me.
>>
>> Yes, it was....however, the sealed-up server was a Novell box, not an NT
>> one; the speculation is how long NT would survive in such a state.
>>
>
>I interpreted your post as implying that the Novell box was DOA. Sorry
>'bout that.
>
>How long would an NT server last in the same circumstance? I of course
>have my opinion, but I'd be more than willing to get some sheetrock and
>some two-by-fours and volunteer our only NT server as an experiment. And
>our pimple-faced MCSE as well.
Oooh, you meanie! :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 8d:09h:40m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. When it absolutely, positively has to act weird.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:55:03 GMT
[snips]
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snips]
> In any case, UNIX code has been around a *lot* longer than Windoze code,
> and so has had much more time to be cleaned.
Yes, there is that - but even with that, are we talking anywhere near a
comparable userbase? Further, when saying "UNIX", we're actually talking a
wide range of OSen - considerably more than the Windows variants comprise -
so we'd have to be sure that _each_ of those, individually, got as
significant an exposure as each Windows version did to make the cases
comparable.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:56:27 GMT
[snips]
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> And, or course, if you're going to compare Windows bugs with Unix bugs,
> then you need to compare Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows CE, Windows 98,
> Windows 98 2nd edition, Windows NT SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 SP6, Windows 2K
Pro,
> Windows 2K Server, Windows NT Server, etc. bugs with Unix bugs.
Absolutely... but let's also remember that "Unix" encompasses quite a few
things itself, and bugs in Unix variant A don't necessarily apply to Unix
variant B.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Big Brother Billy does it again!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 18:01:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mig wrote:
>>
>> Charles Lyttle wrote:
>>
>> > Mig wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dave Martel wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Here we go again, folks! From the Wall Street Journal:
>> >> >
>> >> > <http://www.canoe.ca/MoneyWSJ/wsj2-dow.html>
>> >>
>> >> [cut]
>> >>
>> >> > There's much more of interest in the article, including MS's claim
>> >> > that the reason they're doing this is to avoid paying a license fee
>> >> > for a higher-quality MP3 encoder. Yeah, sure.
>> >>
>> >> Dont get histeric - its just their software that wont recortd MP3's.
>> >> Guess what - it does not do it today and people still use MP3
>> >>
>> > Read the article. It won't play MP3 properly either. Deliberately
>> > degrades the quality so MS stuff sounds better.
>>
>> Is this it ?
>> " Under Microsoft's new restrictions -- which prevent its built-in
>> software from recording MP3 files at fidelity rates higher than 56 kilobits
>> per second -- MP3 music "sounds like somebody in a phone booth underwater,"
>>
>> Read it again WICH PREVENTS ITS BUILT_IN SOFTWARE
>>
>> How the heck can they prevent someone from playing their own MP3 files
>> acquired legally? You guys claims do not make sense.
>>
They might do something as simple as to reset the sound card ten
times a second when Windows Media is not playing.
That would be too obvious so their conditions must drift in and out
of disabling sound so it is not obvious what and when they are
screwing up the playback by non Windows sound.
>This is a standard process for MS. Put in a feature to deliberately
>malfunction with competitors products. Hope users get the impression
>that it is the competing product that is bad. Then the competition dies
>and only the MS propritary software is left. I hope they have played
>this game once too often. Your post makes me think they haven't.
>
They get a new crop of vict..er customers every year as the falling
price of hardware comes with range of those who could never afford a
computer before.
Everyone has grown up hearing the stories of their criminal schemes
but most people assume that it must not be too far beyond normal
business behavior because "we have laws to keep things from going
too far".
The twenty somethings have never seen the antitrust laws enforced
so they do not realize that MS behavior is not just distasteful but
extends to felonious.
--
Linux -- The Unix defragmentation tool.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
