Source code review will never be tolerated.Not as a method for acceptance testing in Software Engineering.
Where in the world is that happening when you simply want to know that what you entered is religously recorded and is not corrupted? Only in Pinas, I guess. On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Paolo Falcone <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Oscar Plameras <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Comelec can't release the source code. They don't have the source codes. >> That's clear enough. > > But they're the only ones that can instruct Smartmatic to release the > source code. To be fair, there are fellow PLUGgers in Smartmatic. Even > if we exercise our connections there, we cannot legally do it since > that is just against the rules. > > Heck, will you just believe us if we ask our Smartmatic counterparts > and they say there are no backdoors? Trust yet verify. This is a > procedure that we must adhere to. > >> Even if Comelec can't release the source code, it does not mean the end of >> the Auteomatic Election System. A portion of the contract may be invalid >> in view of the law, but the entire contract covering the business >> transactions >> between Comelec and Smatmatic may not be invalidated. That's how this >> contract are done. A single provision that's not complied with is not a >> justification to invalidate a contract. And that's true in this situation. > > True. No one is calling for the death of the automated election > system. The death referred to here is the death of the source code > review (read the subject please!). That death is something that we > DONT want to happen. > >> But we are "forking" away from the substance of our discussion, namely, >> that people in this group are keen to see source code review. The point >> is that it is not the efficient way to do acceptance testing of the system. >> In fact, it is the most difficult way and is not the way we do it. > > > That is the kool-aid that COMELEC wants to sell to everyone that the > more learned people here do not buy a rat's ass out of. So you mean to > tell us that government should just violate the law because their > oh-so-wonderful wisdom tells us it's difficult? > > Since when is NOT doing a source code review EQUAL to doing a source > code review? The fallacies are showing in your arguments man. > > COMELEC need not spend a single centavo just to release the source code. > > >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Paolo Falcone <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The contract isn't being discussed here. >>> >>> The question is about the provision of the law that is BEING violated >>> by COMELEC. To wit, the thread started with this proviso: >>> >>> "On SysTest Labs: It will do a testing of the binary executable. The >>> testing will be more scientific than the testing done by the Special >>> Bids and Awards Committee (that awarded the contract to Smartmatic) >>> but will cost COMELEC more than PHP70 Million. Note that this is >>> software testing of the binary executable, not a review of the source >>> code, and the two are totally different "animals". >>> >>> On Monday, October 5, 2009, CenPEG filed with the Supreme Court a >>> petition for mandamus, asking the Supreme Court to force COMELEC to >>> release the source code of the election programs that will be used in >>> May, 2010 to CenPEG and to all interested political parties and >>> groups, as provided for by law (RA-9369)." >>> >>> All it takes for COMELEC to comply is just release the source code for >>> review! Doesn't need a lawyer to interpret source, in fact, lawyers >>> will just get in the way unless they know how to read programming >>> source code. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Oscar Plameras <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Sorry, what I mean is that a portion of the contract maybe invalid but >>>> it does not >>>> invalidate the entire contract? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Oscar Plameras >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> I read this law. But do you know that a portion of the law may be invalid >>>>> but >>>>> it does not invalidate the entire contract? >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Paolo Falcone <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Good grief! Have you been living under a rock? >>>>>> >>>>>> RA-9369 Sec 12 mandates these provisions, to wit: >>>>>> >>>>>> “Once an AES technology is selected for implementation, the Commission >>>>>> shall promptly make the source code of that technology available and >>>>>> open to any interested political party or groups which may conduct >>>>>> their own review thereof." >>>>>> >>>>>> What COMELEC is doing is ILLEGAL. Plain and simple. Welcome to the >>>>>> reality that even constitutional bodies can do wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> Go carry your trolling and one-liners elsewhere boy. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Oscar Plameras >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> What do you mean by law? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem is we are too pedantic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If only we are a little bit practical, pragmatic, and sensible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then, change will come. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Oscar Plameras >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> You're right. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You get what you deserve, as they say. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Paolo Falcone <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> So we're just gonna trade quips and one liners eh? Any two monkeys can >>>>>>>>> play that game. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then again, you still haven't proven that a blackbox test WILL work >>>>>>>>> and SATISFY the requirement (BY LAW!) for the source code review. Or >>>>>>>>> are you claiming invincible ignorance here? This ain't the forum for >>>>>>>>> that! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Oscar Plameras >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> That's why we are in a mess. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There's a saying when you are in a hole, you stop digging. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Oscar Plameras >>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> It's really up to you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Paolo Falcone >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Duh? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are conveniently forgetting that the PCOS is not just "Count >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> Tabulate". It also has features to ensure that the system is NOT >>>>>>>>>>>> tampered, whether during count or transmission, and that requires >>>>>>>>>>>> crypto. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Horses for courses my ass. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If it were just simple to simply trust governments and people, >>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be a need for a military, or for crypto at all. But >>>>>>>>>>>> you're in >>>>>>>>>>>> the real world, and not all can be trusted. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Paolo >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Oscar Plameras >>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Horses for courses. Military security is not comparable to a >>>>>>>>>>>>> system that is >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Count and Tabulate. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Paolo Falcone >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The system is indeed not designed to detect corruption, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither >>>>>>>>>>>>>> does a source code review indicate that with all degrees of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainty >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the presence of a backdoor indicates corruption. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then again, only a source code review satisfies the requirement >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there will be no backdoors in the inspected application, be it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> put by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a corrupt programmer or a programmer in a hurry to get out of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> office. A blackbox testing with the specifications can only get >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you so >>>>>>>>>>>>>> far - that the system is compliant as per specification. Whether >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exceeds or subverts the specification outside the test >>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> something that you can only get with a code review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Has anyone even wondered why the military is so anal about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> source code >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and algorithm review when designing military ciphers? Once the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying mantra (Kerckhoff's principle) is thoroughly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood >>>>>>>>>>>>>> then one will understand why a blackbox testing SIMPLY DOES NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DO THE >>>>>>>>>>>>>> JOB. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It amazes me that there are still some segments in society that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> extend the same level of scrutiny to the system that determines >>>>>>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will run their government. And would rather outsource the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scrutinizing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> eyes to some non-stakeholder corporation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to reviewing software, you can automate all the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but at the end of the day, NEVER TRUST A MACHINE TO DO A HUMAN'S >>>>>>>>>>>>>> JOB. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Oscar Plameras >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should know that the system is not meant to detect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corruption. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Danny Ching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps I should qualify that. Lest the prorammers in the list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. Hehehe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should at least be realistic enough to note that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrupt officials are completely willing to corrupting anyone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including programmers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do I trust pogrammers? Not all. Do you? Btw. Let's keep the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to technical stuff and let us not question each other's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities. Peace. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Danny Ching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2009, at 6:16 PM, Oscar Plameras >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't trust programmers, you are in the wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> profession. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Danny Ching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't trust programmers who hide their code. Although not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewers are honest, all it takes to expose anomalies in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is one honest reviewer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However in a close source system all it takes to corrupt the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one corrupt programmer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Danny Ching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2009, at 6:05 PM, Oscar Plameras >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't trust programmers? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This precisely what's wrong with source code review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Danny Ching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very true. Unfortunately, I do not trust the programmers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check their work. The purpose of source code validation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check the computer or it's software's trustworthiness. A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do what it's told. It is human corruption I'm worried >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about. Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside of computers that is a different problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> altogether. I just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want people blaming computerization for failure of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Danny Ching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:53 PM, Oscar Plameras >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean is the trustworthiness of the people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll say one thing from my experience, you can't use the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human corruption. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Danny Ching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I see where you are coming from. It is not the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worried about sir. It is the trustworthiness of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system. A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exposure of the code will show that it is not doing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ordinary. Besides. If the code is indeed simple as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checking the cource code should be easy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Danny Ching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:26 PM, Oscar Plameras >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A tester does not need to know about programming to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a System. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:47 PM, fooler mail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Oscar Plameras >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, Election Automation Software is one of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easiest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> develop. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is "Count and Tally", nothing complicated and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convoluted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true.. BUT... the purpose of source code review is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is something beyond the count and tally thing which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your simulation test.. as what danny said - TRIGGERS.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special keyboard hotkey, special packets, special ER >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and others >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trigger the manipulation of votes to do the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dagdag-bawas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fooler. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paolo >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >>>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >>>>>>>>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Paolo >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from Makati, Man, Philippines >>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >>>>>>>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >>>>>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Paolo >>>>>>>>> Sent from Makati, Man, Philippines >>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >>>>>>>>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >>>>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >>>>>>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >>>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Paolo >>>>>> Sent from Makati, Man, Philippines >>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >>>>>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >>>>>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >>>>> >>>> _________________________________________________ >>>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >>>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >>>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Paolo >>> Sent from Makati, Man, Philippines >>> _________________________________________________ >>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >>> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >> _________________________________________________ >> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >> > > > > -- > Paolo > Sent from Makati, Man, Philippines > _________________________________________________ > Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug > Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
