Linux-Advocacy Digest #624, Volume #34 Sat, 19 May 01 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (GreyCloud)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (GreyCloud)
Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!! (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum: (Dave Martel)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Roy Culley)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!! (Dave Martel)
Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!! (Dave Martel)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 11:15:27 -0700
Glitch wrote:
>
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Mathew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 18 May 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >
> >> jet wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > > >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >> And where do you suppose the men gets AIDS?
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> From women.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >Bzzzzzzzt! Wrong.
> >> > > > >There is no transport mechanism for any such infection to
> >> > > > >happen.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Well, it seems that the United States Centers for Disease Control
> >> > > > believes otherwise.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > But what do they know? The all-knowing homophobe Kulkis says
> >> > > > otherwise.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq21.htm
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Can I get HIV from having vaginal sex?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Yes, it is possible to become infected with HIV through
> >> > > > vaginal intercourse. In fact, it is the most common way the
> >> > > > virus is transmitted in much of the world. HIV can be found
> >> > > > in the blood, semen, pre-seminal fluid, or vaginal fluid of a
> >> > > > person infected with the virus. The lining of the vagina can
> >> > > > tear and possibly allow HIV to enter the body. Direct
> >> > > > absorption of HIV through the mucous membranes that line the
> >> > > > vagina also is a possibility.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The male may be at less risk for HIV transmission than the
> >> > > > female through vaginal intercourse. However, HIV can enter
> >> > > > the body of the male through his urethra (the opening at the
> >> > > > tip of the penis) or through small cuts or open sores on the
> >> > > > penis.
> >> > >
> >> > > Blood pressure prevents this.
> >> >
> >> > Blood comes out of the urethra?
> >>
> >> No..it keeps the urethra tightly closed until forced open by exiting
> >> semen.
> >
> > Did you know in 1966 95% of U.S. soldiers in Vietnam had contracted VD?
> >
> >
>
> gotta love the Linux advocacy in this thread :)
HAHA!! Maybe we need an app running under Linux that will evaluate the
strengths of condoms??
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 11:22:18 -0700
Michael Vester wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > >
> >
> > It seems to me when anything gets deregulated it sends a signal to that
> > particular industry to start using any tactics necessary to jack up the
> > prices. The population didn't increase that much in one year to cause
> > these power shortages. Most of the power industry says that they have
> > their plant down due to maintenance. They used to do these in a short
> > period of time and made for other arrangements for alternative
> > generation. Now they just keep them offline to jack up the price. Just
> > like the 73 oil shortage.
> >
> > I use wood heat and don't need an alarm clock anymore. So I'm not in a
> > bind if they do shut down the power for a while.
> >
> That's right, you mentioned before that you have retired. Did you work in
> IT most of your life? My next contract will not require an alarm clock. I
> will be building a giant pipe erosion tracking system for one of northern
> Alberta' s oil sand facilities. A time and material contract (my favorite
> kind). The plant site is a bit crowded with over 7,000 construction
> workers so I will be doing most of the work from home. IT does not matter
> what time I start or finish. Just a month or so of meetings with the
> engineering staff, i need an alarm clock for that. If the rolling
> blackouts interfere with my work, I will install that generator.
>
Well, I worked for the DOD in the Navy Dept. In the 70's I was cruise
missile certified. Electronics at that time which then moved into
Nuclear Power engineering... then to automated test engineering to
develop tests for old plug-in circuit cards. Thats when DOD decided I
can handle IT as well as ATE. The advantage I had was when I needed a
new piece of hardware or a new computer I usually got it.
Bellingham, WA had a gasoline pipeline explode on them a couple of years
ago. They need to monitor their pipelines a little better. Sounds like
you are doing a worthwhile project that means something.
> > > My father was so annoyed with our power situation, he installed a 6.5
> > > kilowatt gasoline generator and wired it into his house. If we get some
> > > long blackouts, I am going to get a generator too.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Michael Vester
> > > A credible Linux advocate
> > >
> > > "The avalanche has started, it is
> > > too late for the pebbles to vote"
> > > Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
> >
> > --
> > V
>
> --
> Michael Vester
> A credible Linux advocate
>
> "The avalanche has started, it is
> too late for the pebbles to vote"
> Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!!
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 11:26:35 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > Only what MS told any publication or editor... pure spin doctoring.
> > > > Doesn't take a genius to spot it either.
> > > > It's MS that is spinning its tales.
> > >
> > > Ok, so now The Register isn't smart enough to spot FUD? Any way you
> spin
> > > it, you're nailing your favorite publication and will never be able to
> use
> > > it as a reliable source to back up your claims again.
> >
> > I don't trust any publication. I view this from a standpoint where MS
> > is currently standing. They are behind in delivering XP, behind on
> > delivering an O/S for IA-64.
>
> Huh? What does this have to do with the alleged backdoor?
>
Simple, ... their track record of past press releases.
> In any event, MS is not behind on XP, unless you mean a consumer version of
> NT. Hell, when it ships it will be less than 2 years from the release of
> 2000, which is a very short cycle.
Didn't they annouce that XP would be ready in Q2 of this year? Even the
MSCEs were telling me to wait and not get Win2k for my wife... we aren't
so sure about XP... matter of fact we no longer trust MS in this
registration thing. MS is going to have to announce precisely what this
registration thing is all about ... and then she said she will watch for
others to make the complaints. She was going to buy an Intel based
computer, but now she is not certain. Maybe a Sun Blade,... ?
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 11:28:33 -0700
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ZfnN6.680$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9e2ni2$137$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:9e1mjh$lor$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Windows comes with WSH, which come with VBS & JS support. You can
> add
> > > > > Perl & Python from activestate.com (free). C#, VB.NET comes with
> .NET
> > > > > beta, and there are also other languages that you can hook there, I
> > > > > believe.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds better than it was, though with UNIX, you can use an arbitrary
> > > > executable as the interpreter.
> > >
> > > You can do the same in Windows, what is your point?
> >
> > How do you make a .bat file interpret itself with perl and pass some
> > arguments as it starts? Under unix, making the first line:
> > #!/usr/bin/perl -w
> > would make perl execute it and turn on warnings.
>
> I'm not sure what you meant here. Can you be clearer?
The first line in a perl script is #!/usr/bin/perl
The #! is called she-bang. The -w option turns on warnings.
The script follows the first line of the same file.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 18:32:29 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3b05d0dc$0$41625$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9du5h6$ika$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > This makes the situation even clearer. Thing what sort of profits MS
> makes
> > per copy of W2k Advanced Server + SQL Server. I don't know the prices
or
> > the profit margins, but lets guess $5,000. In effect, entering a
machine
> > for such benchmarking is advertising - for it to make sense for MS to
> enter
> > a machine (sponsering the hardware) at $500,000, they would have to
reckon
> > that their entry would lead to 100 more sales.
> >
> > For the SGI/IBM solution, the profit margins on the hardware and
software
> > (DB2) would be very large - they might need just ten customers who want
> > those sorts of speeds regardless of the cost per transaction.
> >
> > But consider the case for Red Hat entering a solution based on PostGres
or
> > MySQL. At $79 per software pack, they make maybe $10 profit. If they
> pick
> > low-end hardware (relative to the others here) for $20,000, they have a
> cost
> > of $30,0079 (hardware, entry fee and their own software). That means
they
> > have to gain 3,000 new customers because of their benchmark entry.
Given
> > that a hefty proportion of people seeing these results will be just as
> > likely to use a free copy of Red Hat, or another distribution, or use
the
> > same copy on several machines, they are going to have to impress
something
> > like 30,000 potential customers. They need to impress 300 times as many
> > potential customers as MS, using hardware for around 5% of the price,
> before
> > they can afford to enter the benchmark. And every dollar they spend on
it
> > helps their direct competition (i.e., other Linux distributers) just as
> much
> > as themselves.
>
> There is a significant problem with all this: PostGres and MySQL totally
> suck as databases and can't come close to competing with the lies of DB2
and
> SQL Server 2000. I doubt they could even complete the benchmarks. So your
> scenarios is fictional
I don't think you've looked at PostgreSQL recently. It is too bad that
MS and other commercial DB vendors prohibit publishing benchmarks
that they don't control or you would probably know how well it compares.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 11:35:16 -0700
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> > Identity theft involves taking your
> > name and some other key identification
> > information like your social security number
> > and then applying for credit cards in your name.
> >
> > Once they've ruined your credit with bogus charges
> > it's a real pain to get it off your record.
> That is if you are stupid enough to give out your social security number and
> place your photo, name, address, phone number etc etc on the net. No one
> knows my IRD number, no one knows my address, phone number or what I look
> like, so how is it possible for me?
>
> Matthew Gardiner
It works differently here. Once a credit card or identity theif gets
one piece of information about you they can then pull the other pieces
together, like a social security number and all of your credit card
numbers. Or they can rob your mail box of bank statements, which
usually have ads to increase your credit line. It has happened alot and
now there is a public service on how to improve your own security in
these matters.
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 18:36:58 GMT
They think I am everyone from Clara Barton to the Pope...
but, if it keeps them busy tracking things so be it.
flatfish
On Sat, 19 May 2001 11:47:18 -0400, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
>> remember to add [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the list as well.
>
>Actually, I'm not so sure about Ubercat. Steve lives in NY on Long
>Island, and ubercat's posting IP returns:
>
>Name: va-charlottesville3a-908.chr.adelphia.net
>Address: 24.51.147.140
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 11:39:40 -0700
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > I think the SETI program is a farce! No offense to you, but I often
> > wonder what good does it do them? Radio waves travel a little slower
> > than the speed of light.
>
> Radio waves travel *exactly* at the speed of light, since they're the
> same stuff.
>
The National Bureua of Standards has measured it to be about 88% of c.
It does not travel at the speed of light. Neither do electrons in a
copper wire.
> -Ed
>
>
>
> --
> (You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
>
> /d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
> r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
> }d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 18:45:05 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e5ndl$j69$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > > > Perl & Python from activestate.com (free). C#, VB.NET comes with
> .NET
> > > > > beta, and there are also other languages that you can hook there,
I
> > > > > believe.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds better than it was, though with UNIX, you can use an
arbitrary
> > > > executable as the interpreter.
> > >
> > > You can do the same in Windows, what is your point?
> >
> > How do you make a .bat file interpret itself with perl and pass some
> > arguments as it starts? Under unix, making the first line:
> > #!/usr/bin/perl -w
> > would make perl execute it and turn on warnings.
>
> I'm not sure what you meant here. Can you be clearer?
Unix looks for
#!/path/to/interpreter args_to_interpreter
at the top of an executable file so you can control
which shell or other interpreter parses it and force
it to always have certain arguments. This is a
general facility that works with any program that
reads from stdin. Any executable file can use this
to automatically have itself read by any other program.
For example:
===
#!/bin/cat
test
===
as an executable file would invoke /bin/cat, which simply
copies stdin to stdout and would thus print the file contents
to your screen (just to show that no special concepts are
involved for the program invoked).
How do you do the same in Windows?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum:
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 12:36:43 -0600
On Sat, 19 May 2001 22:20:39 +1200, "Matthew Gardiner"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why even have a registry? by now, with all the money Microsoft has made,
>they should have already shipped the first, self repairing OS, that repairs
>the code when the OS crashes, thus ensuring it doesn't happen again. Or,
>when a file is screwed, it is automatically mended without user
>intervention. File systems that are immune to fragmentation, corruption,
>and other problems. Yet, 15 years, and several billion dollars later, the
>mecca of computing has not been delivered.
You won't get any argument from me. IMO Microsoft has set the computer
revolution back 10-15 years. With all their money and resources and
all the years they've been in the OS business, there's really no
excuse for Windows' continuing problems.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:14:17 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <9e655f$6k1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9e5v0u$idd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Yes, they do, or they are not code reviews.
>> >
>> > Wow, suddenly, reviewing code isn't a code review simply because it
>> doesn't
>> > review every line in a program. Do you have any idea how long it would
>> take
>> > to review 35 million lines of code?
>>
>> Had they got it right the first time, they wouldn't need to review 35
>> Million lines of code.
>
> Nice rethorics, now show me the > 15KLOC that "they got it right the first
> time".
> Hell, wu-ftpd is 8KLOC, and they *still* didn't got all the bugs out.
>
>> Also, they would have programmed more efficiently,
>> and it wouldn't have bloated to 35 Million lines of code vs. the 6 or so
>> million Solaris 8 04/01 has.
>
> What does Solaris comes with? Please refer to only those 6 - 8 MLOC that you
> talked about.
> (BTW, can't they count? 6 to 8 is pretty big gap)
What does W2K come with out of the box that Solaris doesn't? I'm eager
to know.
--
Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
looking any better.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 18:57:32 GMT
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> > Actually quite the contrary. Can you point to ANY successful open source
> > business? Didn't think so. I don't expect we'll see any either. Hows
Ezael
> > doing?
>
> No, but operating systems are the redundant parts of any system.
Jan seems to think that 'successful' means extracting vast amounts of
money from the customer base. As a user, I'm not really all that
enthusiastic about that definition of success. I'd prefer to define
success in terms of being able to deliver reliable, usable programs
with upgrades and bugfixes over a long interval of time. From
this perspective there are a lot of open source projects that are
much more successful than anything from Microsoft. How long
have you been able to upgrade your sendmail, apache, or samba
(just a few examples) for free? What's the longest interval Microsoft
has ever supported something with free upgrades or bugfixes? No matter
how badly broken it was when they sold it to you, at some point they
just make you buy a new version.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!!
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:00:29 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ZzqN6.2022$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:LHnN6.682$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:yCjN6.1642$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > Only what MS told any publication or editor... pure spin doctoring.
> > > > Doesn't take a genius to spot it either.
> > > > It's MS that is spinning its tales.
> > >
> > > Ok, so now The Register isn't smart enough to spot FUD? Any way you
> spin
> > > it, you're nailing your favorite publication and will never be able to
> use
> > > it as a reliable source to back up your claims again.
> >
> > How can anyone know the truth without access to the source? Did MS
offer
> > it for an independent audit?
>
> Considering that MS *DOES* license it's source to quite a few third
parties,
> including educational institutions, I'd say that's a third party audit.
Do they allow those parties to publish anything they learn by reading
the source? I'd say it doesn't mean a thing if it comes with a
required NDA.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:01:00 GMT
On Sat 19 May 2001 01:45, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9e5ndl$j69$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > > > > Perl & Python from activestate.com (free). C#, VB.NET comes with
>> .NET
>> > > > > beta, and there are also other languages that you can hook there,
> I
>> > > > > believe.
>> > > >
>> > > > Sounds better than it was, though with UNIX, you can use an
> arbitrary
>> > > > executable as the interpreter.
>> > >
>> > > You can do the same in Windows, what is your point?
>> >
>> > How do you make a .bat file interpret itself with perl and pass some
>> > arguments as it starts? Under unix, making the first line:
>> > #!/usr/bin/perl -w
>> > would make perl execute it and turn on warnings.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you meant here. Can you be clearer?
>
> Unix looks for
> #!/path/to/interpreter args_to_interpreter
> at the top of an executable file so you can control
> which shell or other interpreter parses it and force
> it to always have certain arguments. This is a
> general facility that works with any program that
> reads from stdin. Any executable file can use this
> to automatically have itself read by any other program.
> For example:
> ===
> #!/bin/cat
> test
> ===
> as an executable file would invoke /bin/cat, which simply
> copies stdin to stdout and would thus print the file contents
> to your screen (just to show that no special concepts are
> involved for the program invoked).
>
> How do you do the same in Windows?
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
This is slightly incorrect. The interpreter will be handed the name of the
executable script on the command line. For instance, if you create a file
named example-script, mark it as executable, then give it the following
contents:
#!/usr/bin/foo -a
wibble
wobble
... then execute it as "./example-script -b", then the command line that
will actually be executed is "/usr/bin/foo -a ./example-script -b". It is
then the duty of the program to read the script as a file and take action.
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!!
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 12:49:06 -0600
On Sat, 19 May 2001 03:52:36 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > Only what MS told any publication or editor... pure spin doctoring.
>> > > Doesn't take a genius to spot it either.
>> > > It's MS that is spinning its tales.
>> >
>> > Ok, so now The Register isn't smart enough to spot FUD? Any way you
>spin
>> > it, you're nailing your favorite publication and will never be able to
>use
>> > it as a reliable source to back up your claims again.
>>
>> I don't trust any publication. I view this from a standpoint where MS
>> is currently standing. They are behind in delivering XP, behind on
>> delivering an O/S for IA-64.
>
>Huh? What does this have to do with the alleged backdoor?
>
>In any event, MS is not behind on XP, unless you mean a consumer version of
>NT. Hell, when it ships it will be less than 2 years from the release of
>2000, which is a very short cycle.
If MS had been on time, there wouldn't have been a Windows ME.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!!
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 12:50:48 -0600
On Sat, 19 May 2001 03:53:22 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:LHnN6.682$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:yCjN6.1642$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > > Only what MS told any publication or editor... pure spin doctoring.
>> > > Doesn't take a genius to spot it either.
>> > > It's MS that is spinning its tales.
>> >
>> > Ok, so now The Register isn't smart enough to spot FUD? Any way you
>spin
>> > it, you're nailing your favorite publication and will never be able to
>use
>> > it as a reliable source to back up your claims again.
>>
>> How can anyone know the truth without access to the source? Did MS offer
>> it for an independent audit?
>
>Considering that MS *DOES* license it's source to quite a few third parties,
>including educational institutions, I'd say that's a third party audit.
Any bets those third parties have to sign non-disclosure agreements?
Besides "quite a few third parties", most of whom are probably more
interested in specific functionality issues than overall privacy and
security, is not the same as opening up the code to anyone who feels
like inspecting it.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:07:19 GMT
"JS PL" <the_win98box_in_the_corner> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > Nice teleology; MS forces people to pay for the same crap all over again
> > over and over (well, admittedly, it isn't quite the same, which of
> > course is half the reason for the complaints) and this is "in order for
> > it to improve"?
> >
> > Linux improves for free. Guffaw.
>
> If your time is worth nothing...tee hee...
I don't think you would talk about time if you installed all those MS
Win2k security patches one by one that force you to reboot after each
one installs. One guy here did that with at least 21 of them. Another
one didn't, and had a web server broken into (apparently like most of
the rest of the world a few weeks ago...) and had to reinstall everything.
Is that your idea of saving time?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
