On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Oscar Plameras <[email protected]> wrote: > Source code review will never be tolerated.Not as a method for acceptance > testing in Software Engineering. >
Peddle that myth to the makers of Crucible + Fisheye, Bazaar, Google, etc. And watch the sky go crashing that you're plainly, misguidedly, wrong. > 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. And a host of other countries too. > > 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 > -- 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
