And the earth is flat.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Paolo Falcone <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
