Save that the world is an oblate spheroid, troll. The thing is, say whatever shenanigan you have re: software engineering (and futilely combat conventional wisdom), the law requires a source code review, plain and simple. Go fund your nearest congressman if you want that changed.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Oscar Plameras <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- 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
