Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
hacked.


http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html


ROFLMAO!!!

The more it gains market share the more it will be hacked. Do we ever get to
blame the hackers for any of this or is it always the OS'es fault?

<bogus@invalid.tld> wrote in message
news:vbjctv456fdrtcphqq4ur2rs0uqqhl6cme@4ax.com...
> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
> hacked.
>
>
> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>
>
> ROFLMAO!!!
>

bogus@invalid.tld wrote:

> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
> hacked.
> 
> 
> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!!

Yea, I like this quote the best:

"Both attacks were similarly executed: An attacker managed to garner a
legitimate user's log-in name and password and then used a recently
discovered vulnerability in the Linux kernel to gain the rights and
privileges of the system's owners. "

I would like to know if *any* system has ever been 100% secure in the face
of this form of attack. Giving a large number of users interactive access
to a production machine is *always* a recipe for disaster.

Alternately, I think in this very same series of events would be a slam-dunk
under Windows 2k or XP.

bogus@invalid.tld wrote:

> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
> hacked.
> 
> 
> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!!

This is NOTHING compared to what happens to poor Windows on a daily basis.

ROFLMAO!!!


-- 

A fatal exception 0E has occurred at 0028:C000BD1D in VXD VMM(01) +
0000AD1D. The current application will be terminated.

bogus@invalid.tld wrote:

> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
> hacked.
> 
> 
> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!!
> 
> 

No OS that is networkable is totally secure. It is very clear that the 
options one has to hack Linux is very small in comparison to a Windows 
based system. For instance, a windows based system can easily be 
compromised just by using the holes in Internet Explorer. You cannot do 
that type of damage on a Linux based system using Mozilla.

Regards,
--
Matt Costanza
Austin, Tx USA

In article <4IsBb.5673$_r6.1997@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> 
Dr alw <alw@LinuxRules.org> wrote:

>bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
>
>> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>> hacked.
>> 
>> 
>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>> 
>> 
>> ROFLMAO!!!
>
>This is NOTHING compared to what happens to poor Windows on a daily basis.


It is nothing because Linux market is nothing, you illiterate dumbass.

>ROFLMAO!!!

I agree, I laughed at you Linux people looking like complete dumbasses
when you see such articles.

*poof* 
All that "LINUX CANNOT BE HACKED" screaming is down the toilet again.

ROFLMAO!!!

bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
> hacked.
> 
> 
> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!!
> 

I'm impressed.

One linux server is hacked and it makes the news!
Linux MUST be secure!!

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:34:41 +0000, bogu wrote:

> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
> hacked.
> 
> 
> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!!

If Linux and Unix disappear, then you are stuck with a machine that will
do nothing but run MS Office and play games since most of the Internet
runs on either one of those OS's. The idea that NT and its brethern could
fill up the holes is laughable to anyone who has tried to maintain a large
NT network.:):):) 

Damn, I just realised as I typed the above that the Unix/Linux Internet is
responsible for the delivery of all those worms and viruses!!  Talk about
being your own worst enemy!


KRF  

In article <4jxBb.19295$3Eb1.18556@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Ori <oridean@rogers-dot.com> wrote:

>bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
>> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>> hacked.
>> 
>> 
>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>> 
>> 
>> ROFLMAO!!!
>> 
>
>I'm impressed.
>
>One linux server is hacked and it makes the news!
>Linux MUST be secure!!

You are a confirmed idiot.

It's 4 servers and not one.
It made the news because:

1. ftp.gnu.org was hacked, therefore none of your Linux packages are now
guaranteed to be trojan free.

2. The Linux Kernel project server was hacked, therefore none of your
Linux distributions are now guaranteed to be trojan free.

3. One of the Debian Linux distribution development servers was hacked,
therefore none of your Debian Linux releases are now guaranteed to be
 trojan free.


4. One of Gentoo's distrubution/development servers was hacked,
therefore none of your Gentoo Linux distribution releases are now
guaranteed to be trojan free.

Get it now, moron?

Next time learn how to read and count, instead of spending your dad's
welfare checks on pathetic Linux machines to read COLA.

Idiot.

In article <pan.2003.12.10.04.42.16.313115@nowhere.com> 
"KRF" <krf@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:34:41 +0000, bogu wrote:
>
>> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>> hacked.
>> 
>> 
>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>> 
>> 
>> ROFLMAO!!!
>
>If Linux and Unix disappear, then you are stuck with a machine that will
>do nothing but run MS Office and play games since most of the Internet
>runs on either one of those OS's. 


You fuckin' idiot.

Windows computers have great servers and workstations.

Unlike your stupid, pathetic, boring, retarded, stuck in stone age OS,
Windows have commercial support and hundreds of thousands professionals
to code, support and work with it, compared to goofy, geeky, immature,
retarded, hostile, ignorant and angry college asswipes in Linux.

>The idea that NT and its brethern could
>fill up the holes is laughable to anyone who has tried to maintain a large
>NT network.:):):) 

Then you should consider working for professional companies with real
Network admins, unlike those garage businesses that nobody has heard of.

If you mention Linux in any large, more than 500 employee company,
you'll get your ignorant ass laughed at.

>Damn, I just realised as I typed the above that the Unix/Linux Internet is
>responsible for the delivery of all those worms and viruses!!  Talk about
>being your own worst enemy!
>

Admission of guilt noted.

bogus@invalid.tld writes:

> In article <pan.2003.12.10.04.42.16.313115@nowhere.com> 
> "KRF" <krf@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
> >If Linux and Unix disappear, then you are stuck with a machine that will
> >do nothing but run MS Office and play games since most of the Internet
> >runs on either one of those OS's. 
> 
> You fuckin' idiot.
> 
> Windows computers have great servers and workstations.
> 
> Unlike your stupid, pathetic, boring, retarded, stuck in stone age OS,
> Windows have commercial support and hundreds of thousands professionals
> to code, support and work with it, 

and professional astro-turfers who are paid to defend it in Usenet forums. ;^>

-SEan

In article <x7iskpi3nx.fsf@bolo.xenadyne.com> 
Sean Burke <foobar@mystery.org> wrote:

><Linux teenager try to be funny>

You fuckin' idiot.

Go get some education instead of trolling on usenet.

On 2003-12-10, bogus@invalid.tld <bogus@invalid.tld> wrote:
> In article <4jxBb.19295$3Eb1.18556@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
> Ori <oridean@rogers-dot.com> wrote:
>

<snip>

> 3. One of the Debian Linux distribution development servers was hacked,
> therefore none of your Debian Linux releases are now guaranteed to be
>  trojan free.
>

Actually, it was more like 4 debian servers.  But whose counting...

-- 
Tom Shelton

In article <IlzBb.1441$Bd3.86589@news.uswest.net> 
Tom Shelton <tom@mtogden.com> wrote:

>On 2003-12-10, bogus@invalid.tld <bogus@invalid.tld> wrote:
>> In article <4jxBb.19295$3Eb1.18556@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
>> Ori <oridean@rogers-dot.com> wrote:
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> 3. One of the Debian Linux distribution development servers was hacked,
>> therefore none of your Debian Linux releases are now guaranteed to be
>>  trojan free.
>>
>
>Actually, it was more like 4 debian servers.  But whose counting...

LOL.

Hey I admit a I made mistake, but looks like our friend "Ori" has
skipped few math lessons at school.

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:48:47 -0500, MuahMan wrote:

> The more it gains market share the more it will be hacked. Do we ever get to
> blame the hackers for any of this or is it always the OS'es fault?

Not after all of the posts from linux zealots in this newsgroup claiming
that Microsoft should be defenestrated because of its own similar problems,
no. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You reap what you
sow. Every cowboy has a sad, sad song. Etc. etc.

-- 
People in the killfile (and whose posts I won't read) as of 12/9/2003
11:19:56 PM:
Peter Kohlmann, T.Max Devlin.

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:53:44 GMT, mlw wrote:

> bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
> 
>> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>> hacked.
>> 
>> 
>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>> 
>> 
>> ROFLMAO!!!
> 
> Yea, I like this quote the best:
> 
> "Both attacks were similarly executed: An attacker managed to garner a
> legitimate user's log-in name and password and then used a recently
> discovered vulnerability in the Linux kernel to gain the rights and
> privileges of the system's owners. "
> 
> I would like to know if *any* system has ever been 100% secure in the face
> of this form of attack. Giving a large number of users interactive access
> to a production machine is *always* a recipe for disaster.
> 
> Alternately, I think in this very same series of events would be a slam-dunk
> under Windows 2k or XP.

Excuses, excuses. Anything to take the heat away from the rather pathetic
response of the Linux community in the face of this bug. That was patched.
Several months ago. Yet wasn't distributed to ANYONE.

Bwuhahahahahahah.... what a piece of complacent shit the OSS community has
become. Wait for the wheel, folks.
-- 
People in the killfile (and whose posts I won't read) as of 12/9/2003
11:21:40 PM:
Peter Kohlmann, T.Max Devlin.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 06:32:27 GMT, Sean Burke wrote:

> 
> bogus@invalid.tld writes:
> 
>> In article <pan.2003.12.10.04.42.16.313115@nowhere.com> 
>> "KRF" <krf@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>If Linux and Unix disappear, then you are stuck with a machine that will
>>>do nothing but run MS Office and play games since most of the Internet
>>>runs on either one of those OS's. 
>> 
>> You fuckin' idiot.
>> 
>> Windows computers have great servers and workstations.
>> 
>> Unlike your stupid, pathetic, boring, retarded, stuck in stone age OS,
>> Windows have commercial support and hundreds of thousands professionals
>> to code, support and work with it, 
> 
> and professional astro-turfers who are paid to defend it in Usenet forums. ;^>

Was that a tip-off or an admission? :)
-- 
People in the killfile (and whose posts I won't read) as of 12/9/2003
11:23:26 PM:
Peter Kohlmann, T.Max Devlin.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:21:37 GMT, "Milo T." <fantastical@malaprop.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:48:47 -0500, MuahMan wrote:
>
>> The more it gains market share the more it will be hacked. Do we ever get to
>> blame the hackers for any of this or is it always the OS'es fault?
>
>Not after all of the posts from linux zealots in this newsgroup 

'this' newsgroup being? (see the header for a clue as to how many
newsgroups you are posting to).


>People in the killfile (and whose posts I won't read) as of 12/9/2003
>11:19:56 PM:
>Peter Kohlmann, T.Max Devlin.

Who gives a shit?

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 06:23:22 GMT, bogus@invalid.tld wrote:

>>The idea that NT and its brethern could
>>fill up the holes is laughable to anyone who has tried to maintain a large
>>NT network.:):):) 
>
>Then you should consider working for professional companies with real
>Network admins, unlike those garage businesses that nobody has heard of.

Sure, nobody has heard of the likes of IBM.

>If you mention Linux in any large, more than 500 employee company,
>you'll get your ignorant ass laughed at.

Mention it at IBM, and you'll be told not only do they use it, but it
runs on their 'big iron'.  More than you can say for Windows.  Oh, and
before you foam at the mouth, my two bread-and-butter OS's are Windows
XP and MacOS X, no linux anywhere.

In article <2fldtvoivru3po71fvk4vvj3ai7iqmqnuk@4ax.com> 
Noel <no.thanks@I.dont.want.your.spam> wrote:

>>People in the killfile (and whose posts I won't read) as of 12/9/2003
>>11:19:56 PM:
>>Peter Kohlmann, T.Max Devlin.
>
>Who gives a shit?

Looks like you do.
You read it and then started bitching about it.

In article <msldtv08s1bb0p5l51beqkas6n2aen5n64@4ax.com> 
Noel <no.thanks@I.dont.want.your.spam> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 06:23:22 GMT, bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
>
>>>The idea that NT and its brethern could
>>>fill up the holes is laughable to anyone who has tried to maintain a large
>>>NT network.:):):) 
>>
>>Then you should consider working for professional companies with real
>>Network admins, unlike those garage businesses that nobody has heard of.
>
>Sure, nobody has heard of the likes of IBM.
>

Shut the fuck up bitch.
IBM is the most stupid company out there.
They cannot run and promote their own OS, and now they are jerking off
using Linux.

Idiot.

Milo T. wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 06:32:27 GMT, Sean Burke wrote:
> 
>> 
>> bogus@invalid.tld writes:
>> 
>>> In article <pan.2003.12.10.04.42.16.313115@nowhere.com>
>>> "KRF" <krf@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>If Linux and Unix disappear, then you are stuck with a machine that will
>>>>do nothing but run MS Office and play games since most of the Internet
>>>>runs on either one of those OS's.
>>> 
>>> You fuckin' idiot.
>>> 
>>> Windows computers have great servers and workstations.
>>> 
>>> Unlike your stupid, pathetic, boring, retarded, stuck in stone age OS,
>>> Windows have commercial support and hundreds of thousands professionals
>>> to code, support and work with it,
>> 
>> and professional astro-turfers who are paid to defend it in Usenet
>> forums. ;^>
> 
> Was that a tip-off or an admission? :)

Neither. It was a reminder that you and Erik F will not get a bonus
gratification this year because of total incompetence in FUDding
-- 
Who the fuck is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?

In article <v4edtv8kdg79k3krek5frnviqijnqjr8fj@4ax.com>,
<bogus@invalid.tld> wrote:

> Windows computers have great servers and workstations.

Where I work, I regularly have to log on remotely to one of three Unix
servers or a Windows server maintained by another company. Guess which
of those servers I'm describing below.

I have to make a support call about once every month due to problems
logging in, the system no longer recognizing me, the system no longer
responding, no longer accepting uploaded files, no longer displaying
the correct information, etc., etc. We also receive notices about once
every two weeks that one of those machines will be down for two hours
for maintenance and updates. Occasionally, one of those machines takes
a nosedive and has to be rebooted. Occasionally, one of those machines
has to be taken offline temporarily while the source of database
corruption is tracked down and/or fixed. 

Have you guessed which machine I'm talking about yet? I'll give you a
hint. You described it as "great." I would pick another word for it.

In article <pcmdtv82n7oth7ci9dketmcl4n136t453m@4ax.com>,
<bogus@invalid.tld> wrote:

> Shut the fuck up bitch.
> IBM is the most stupid company out there.
> They cannot run and promote their own OS, and now they are jerking off
> using Linux.
> 
> Idiot.

You do realize that you forgot to crosspost to alt.support.tourettes,
right?

bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
> hacked.
> 
> 
> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!!
> 

"It is a definite eyebrow raiser" is about the strongest reaction to be 
found in the article. They're certainly shaken, allright.

-- 
the Entity Formerly Known As Jazz

"Civilization is the distance man has placed between himself and his 
excreta." -- Brian Aldiss

zurg threw some tea leaves on the floor
 and this is what they wrote:

> In article <pcmdtv82n7oth7ci9dketmcl4n136t453m@4ax.com>,
><bogus@invalid.tld> wrote:
> 
>> Shut the fuck up bitch.
>> IBM is the most stupid company out there.
>> They cannot run and promote their own OS, and now they are jerking off
>> using Linux.
>> 
>> Idiot.
> 
> You do realize that you forgot to crosspost to alt.support.tourettes,
> right?

Hahahahahahaahahah!
Good one :)

-- 
              Kind Regards from Terry 
    My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2   
         New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/          
 ** Linux Registration Number: 103931,  http://counter.li.org **

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:22:37 +0000, Milo T. wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:53:44 GMT, mlw wrote:
> 
>> bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
>> 
>>> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>>> hacked.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ROFLMAO!!!
>> 
>> Yea, I like this quote the best:
>> 
>> "Both attacks were similarly executed: An attacker managed to garner a
>> legitimate user's log-in name and password and then used a recently
>> discovered vulnerability in the Linux kernel to gain the rights and
>> privileges of the system's owners. "
>> 
>> I would like to know if *any* system has ever been 100% secure in the face
>> of this form of attack. Giving a large number of users interactive access
>> to a production machine is *always* a recipe for disaster.
>> 
>> Alternately, I think in this very same series of events would be a slam-dunk
>> under Windows 2k or XP.
> 
> Excuses, excuses. Anything to take the heat away from the rather pathetic
> response of the Linux community in the face of this bug. That was patched.
> Several months ago. Yet wasn't distributed to ANYONE.
> 
> Bwuhahahahahahah.... what a piece of complacent shit the OSS community has
> become. Wait for the wheel, folks.

In case no one has reminded lately, you are an asshole. And an ignorant
and dishonest one.

-- 
Rick

In article <v4edtv8kdg79k3krek5frnviqijnqjr8fj@4ax.com>,
 bogus@invalid.tld wrote:

> Windows computers have great servers and workstations.

   FOR ME TO POOP ON!

In article <v4edtv8kdg79k3krek5frnviqijnqjr8fj@4ax.com>,
 <bogus@invalid.tld> wrote:
>In article <pan.2003.12.10.04.42.16.313115@nowhere.com> 
>"KRF" <krf@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:34:41 +0000, bogu wrote:
>>
>>> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>>> hacked.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ROFLMAO!!!
>>
>>If Linux and Unix disappear, then you are stuck with a machine that will
>>do nothing but run MS Office and play games since most of the Internet
>>runs on either one of those OS's. 
>
>
>You fuckin' idiot.
>
>Windows computers have great servers and workstations.
>
>Unlike your stupid, pathetic, boring, retarded, stuck in stone age OS,
>Windows have commercial support and hundreds of thousands professionals
>to code, support and work with it, compared to goofy, geeky, immature,
>retarded, hostile, ignorant and angry college asswipes in Linux.

And MSN is still running on the one that the geeky asswipes made.

-- 
"The polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the 
invarible plane." -- Goldstein, Classical Mechanics 2nd. ed., p207.

bogus@invalid.tld wrote in <krddtvkmeoc2clds3llpju5h9aoccqnp9m@4ax.com> at
December 10, 2003 01:12 am

> In article <4jxBb.19295$3Eb1.18556@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
> Ori <oridean@rogers-dot.com> wrote:
> 
>>bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
>>> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>>> hacked.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ROFLMAO!!!
>>> 
>>
>>I'm impressed.
>>
>>One linux server is hacked and it makes the news!
>>Linux MUST be secure!!
> 
> You are a confirmed idiot.
> 
> It's 4 servers and not one.
> It made the news because:
> 
> 1. ftp.gnu.org was hacked, therefore none of your Linux packages are now
> guaranteed to be trojan free.
> 
The attack was detected within 24 hours and the damage repaired. 
NO distribution has been affected, so only those are affected who
downloaded source from there within that 24 hours. 

> 2. The Linux Kernel project server was hacked, therefore none of your
> Linux distributions are now guaranteed to be trojan free.
>
False. There was a _FAILED_ _attempt_ to hack the kernel, it never got
through the rigorous review process to make it into any kernel build.
This proves how solid is the open source process! 
Can you say the same about M$ ? Did you forget about the NSA keys?
The back-door password for NSA which was in millions of _DEPLOYED_
and used systems. MICROS~1 blamed it on a 'malicious' coder who
'acted without authorization'. Now, how come it made it all the way
to the end users machines??? Maybe MS has no safeguards in their
process to prevent back-doors being installed in their OS??
So, guess how many readily exploitable back-doors are in your
currently running monopoly crapware OS? Definitely more than 1,
I would guess around 5-10, but I might be greatly underestimating it.

> 3. One of the Debian Linux distribution development servers was hacked,
> therefore none of your Debian Linux releases are now guaranteed to be
>  trojan free.
> 
This is a bovine excrement. All Debian Linux installations running versions
released _before_ the incident are safe and secure - that's about 99.99% of
them. The rest have probably been cleaned already and re-installed from a
trusted copy.

> 
> 4. One of Gentoo's distrubution/development servers was hacked,
> therefore none of your Gentoo Linux distribution releases are now
> guaranteed to be trojan free.
> 
Same bovine excrement as above applied to Gentoo. Same fact applies too.

> 
> Idiot.

Nice signature! How fitting!

-- 
Windows = A 32 bit extension to a GUI shell to a 16 bit patch to an 
8 bit OS originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor and sold by a 
2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
LGX = A true 64 bit OS, running on HW from wrist-watch to mainframes.

Ian Amuhton wrote:

> bogus@invalid.tld wrote in <krddtvkmeoc2clds3llpju5h9aoccqnp9m@4ax.com> at
> December 10, 2003 01:12 am
> 
>> In article <4jxBb.19295$3Eb1.18556@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
>> Ori <oridean@rogers-dot.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
>>>> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>>>> hacked.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ROFLMAO!!!
>>>> 
>>>
>>>I'm impressed.
>>>
>>>One linux server is hacked and it makes the news!
>>>Linux MUST be secure!!
>> 
>> You are a confirmed idiot.
>> 
>> It's 4 servers and not one.
>> It made the news because:
>> 
>> 1. ftp.gnu.org was hacked, therefore none of your Linux packages are now
>> guaranteed to be trojan free.
>> 
> The attack was detected within 24 hours and the damage repaired.
> NO distribution has been affected, so only those are affected who
> downloaded source from there within that 24 hours.
> 
>> 2. The Linux Kernel project server was hacked, therefore none of your
>> Linux distributions are now guaranteed to be trojan free.
>>
> False. There was a _FAILED_ _attempt_ to hack the kernel, it never got
> through the rigorous review process to make it into any kernel build.
> This proves how solid is the open source process!
> Can you say the same about M$ ? Did you forget about the NSA keys?

Have you forgotten that MS were hacked by russian mafia 3 years ago and 
didn't notice for at least 3 months (not 24 hours, the longest it has taken 
to spot a linux intruder) during which time they had access to the 
sourcecode for XP and ME yet MS have given no indication as to whether any 
of the code was changed (unlike the linux kernel server's backend 
checksumming which identified their security leak) - see 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/14265.html


-- 
Nigel Feltham - spanking trolls since 1999

bogus@invalid.tld wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.12.10.04.42.16.313115@nowhere.com> 
> "KRF" <krf@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:34:41 +0000, bogu wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>>>hacked.
>>>
>>>
>>>http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>>>
>>>
>>>ROFLMAO!!!
>>>
>>If Linux and Unix disappear, then you are stuck with a machine that will
>>do nothing but run MS Office and play games since most of the Internet
>>runs on either one of those OS's. 
>>
> 
> 
> You fuckin' idiot.
> 
> Windows computers have great servers and workstations.

If that is the case, why does every ISP on the planet use a Linux server 
for hosting email or why is Apache used instead of a Microsoft web 
server product?

Regards,
--
Matt Costanza
Austin, Tx USA

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:19:51 GMT, Rick wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:22:37 +0000, Milo T. wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:53:44 GMT, mlw wrote:
>> 
>>> bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>>>> hacked.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ROFLMAO!!!
>>> 
>>> Yea, I like this quote the best:
>>> 
>>> "Both attacks were similarly executed: An attacker managed to garner a
>>> legitimate user's log-in name and password and then used a recently
>>> discovered vulnerability in the Linux kernel to gain the rights and
>>> privileges of the system's owners. "
>>> 
>>> I would like to know if *any* system has ever been 100% secure in the face
>>> of this form of attack. Giving a large number of users interactive access
>>> to a production machine is *always* a recipe for disaster.
>>> 
>>> Alternately, I think in this very same series of events would be a slam-dunk
>>> under Windows 2k or XP.
>> 
>> Excuses, excuses. Anything to take the heat away from the rather pathetic
>> response of the Linux community in the face of this bug. That was patched.
>> Several months ago. Yet wasn't distributed to ANYONE.
>> 
>> Bwuhahahahahahah.... what a piece of complacent shit the OSS community has
>> become. Wait for the wheel, folks.
> 
> In case no one has reminded lately, you are an asshole. And an ignorant
> and dishonest one.

What do you mean, Rick? Are you telling me that the patch for that kernel
exploit *was* distributed? 

Every security site on the net seems to disagree with that.
-- 
People in the killfile (and whose posts I won't read) as of 12/10/2003
10:37:47 AM:
Peter Kohlmann, T.Max Devlin.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:59:26 GMT, Ian Amuhton wrote:
> False. There was a _FAILED_ _attempt_ to hack the kernel, it never got
> through the rigorous review process to make it into any kernel build.
> This proves how solid is the open source process! 
> Can you say the same about M$ ? Did you forget about the NSA keys?
> The back-door password for NSA which was in millions of _DEPLOYED_
> and used systems. MICROS~1 blamed it on a 'malicious' coder who
> 'acted without authorization'. Now, how come it made it all the way
> to the end users machines??? Maybe MS has no safeguards in their
> process to prevent back-doors being installed in their OS??
> So, guess how many readily exploitable back-doors are in your
> currently running monopoly crapware OS? Definitely more than 1,
> I would guess around 5-10, but I might be greatly underestimating it.

That NSA key bs is a myth. And I don't know what you're reading, but no-one
blamed it on a "malicious coder". It was just a poor choice of name for the
registry key.
 
>> 3. One of the Debian Linux distribution development servers was hacked,
>> therefore none of your Debian Linux releases are now guaranteed to be
>>  trojan free.
>> 
> This is a bovine excrement. All Debian Linux installations running versions
> released _before_ the incident are safe and secure - that's about 99.99% of
> them. The rest have probably been cleaned already and re-installed from a
> trusted copy.

.... unless they've not been patched yet.

-- 
People in the killfile (and whose posts I won't read) as of 12/10/2003
10:38:51 AM:
Peter Kohlmann, T.Max Devlin.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:30:35 GMT, Matt Costanza
<mcostanza@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2003.12.10.04.42.16.313115@nowhere.com> 
>> "KRF" <krf@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:34:41 +0000, bogu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>>>>hacked.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>ROFLMAO!!!
>>>>
>>>If Linux and Unix disappear, then you are stuck with a machine that will
>>>do nothing but run MS Office and play games since most of the Internet
>>>runs on either one of those OS's. 
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> You fuckin' idiot.
>> 
>> Windows computers have great servers and workstations.
>
>If that is the case, why does every ISP on the planet use a Linux server 
>for hosting email or why is Apache used instead of a Microsoft web 
>server product?
>


Price, those are cheap bastards, that's why.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:34:34 +0000 (UTC), glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

>In article <v4edtv8kdg79k3krek5frnviqijnqjr8fj@4ax.com>,
> <bogus@invalid.tld> wrote:
>>In article <pan.2003.12.10.04.42.16.313115@nowhere.com> 
>>"KRF" <krf@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:34:41 +0000, bogu wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>>>> hacked.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ROFLMAO!!!
>>>
>>>If Linux and Unix disappear, then you are stuck with a machine that will
>>>do nothing but run MS Office and play games since most of the Internet
>>>runs on either one of those OS's. 
>>
>>
>>You fuckin' idiot.
>>
>>Windows computers have great servers and workstations.
>>
>>Unlike your stupid, pathetic, boring, retarded, stuck in stone age OS,
>>Windows have commercial support and hundreds of thousands professionals
>>to code, support and work with it, compared to goofy, geeky, immature,
>>retarded, hostile, ignorant and angry college asswipes in Linux.
>
>And MSN is still running on the one that the geeky asswipes made.

At least Microsoft have their network, do Linux goofs have something
similar?

Of course not, they are all nothing but loud mouth dickless idiots.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:09:21 -0500, "Triumph, The Insult Comic Dog"
<hydrant@tree.com> wrote:

>In article <v4edtv8kdg79k3krek5frnviqijnqjr8fj@4ax.com>,
> bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
>
>> Windows computers have great servers and workstations.
>
>   FOR ME TO POOP ON!

You got your geography messed up, comic jackass.

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:46:28 GMT, Matt Costanza
<mcostanza@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
>
>> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>> hacked.
>> 
>> 
>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>> 
>> 
>> ROFLMAO!!!
>> 
>> 
>
>No OS that is networkable is totally secure. 

Linux advocate morons claim otherwise.

>It is very clear that the 
>options one has to hack Linux is very small in comparison to a Windows 
>based system. For instance, a windows based system can easily be 
>compromised just by using the holes in Internet Explorer. You cannot do 
>that type of damage on a Linux based system using Mozilla.

That's because it has little market to bother with, and don't forget,
all the Linux goofy script kiddies who have nothing better to do in
their lives other than trying to find holes in Microsoft related
software.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:59:26 GMT, Ian Amuhton <abuse@msn.com> wrote:

>bogus@invalid.tld wrote in <krddtvkmeoc2clds3llpju5h9aoccqnp9m@4ax.com> at
>December 10, 2003 01:12 am
>
>> In article <4jxBb.19295$3Eb1.18556@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
>> Ori <oridean@rogers-dot.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
>>>> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>>>> hacked.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ROFLMAO!!!
>>>> 
>>>
>>>I'm impressed.
>>>
>>>One linux server is hacked and it makes the news!
>>>Linux MUST be secure!!
>> 
>> You are a confirmed idiot.
>> 
>> It's 4 servers and not one.
>> It made the news because:
>> 
>> 1. ftp.gnu.org was hacked, therefore none of your Linux packages are now
>> guaranteed to be trojan free.
>> 
>The attack was detected within 24 hours and the damage repaired. 
>NO distribution has been affected, so only those are affected who
>downloaded source from there within that 24 hours. 
>


That's what the dickheads administering the server claim, I don't see a
reason to take everything that they say as credible.


>> 2. The Linux Kernel project server was hacked, therefore none of your
>> Linux distributions are now guaranteed to be trojan free.
>>
>False. 

Read it again and weep.

><run on bullshit from Linux dirtbag deleted>

It seems that you need to get some education, dickhead.

>> 3. One of the Debian Linux distribution development servers was hacked,
>> therefore none of your Debian Linux releases are now guaranteed to be
>>  trojan free.
>> 
>This is a bovine excrement. All Debian Linux installations running versions
>released _before_ the incident are safe and secure - that's about 99.99% of
>them. The rest have probably been cleaned already and re-installed from a
>trusted copy.
>

Trusted as in "Linux servers cannot be hacked"?
Sure, whatever makes you happy.

Meanwhile, do check your computer for trojan activity.

>> 
>> 4. One of Gentoo's distrubution/development servers was hacked,
>> therefore none of your Gentoo Linux distribution releases are now
>> guaranteed to be trojan free.
>> 
>Same bovine excrement as above applied to Gentoo. Same fact applies too.

Yawn.

Hey jackass, try to check your facts before making a complete ass out of
yourself on usenet, you douchebag.


>> 
>> Idiot.
>
>Nice signature! How fitting!

I said the same thing about you.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:15:58 +0000, Nigel Feltham
<nigel.feltham@btinternet.com> wrote:

>-- 
>Nigel Feltham - spanking myself since 1999

Yep, and we can all confirm that.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 06:32:27 GMT, Sean Burke <foobar@mystery.org> wrote:

>and professional astro-turfers who are paid to defend it in Usenet forums.

Nice signature, it really fits you.

Congratulations, you made the first step into admitting that you are a
complete idiot.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:38:48 +0100, Peter K�hlmann
<Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

><snip>

Idiot.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:45:09 GMT, zurg <zurg@fakeaddress.com> wrote:

>In article <pcmdtv82n7oth7ci9dketmcl4n136t453m@4ax.com>,
><bogus@invalid.tld> wrote:
>
>> Shut the fuck up bitch.
>> IBM is the most stupid company out there.
>> They cannot run and promote their own OS, and now they are jerking off
>> using Linux.
>> 
>> Idiot.
>
>You do realize that you forgot to crosspost to alt.support.tourettes,
>right?

Is that your home group?

You are just disappointed because you are left out.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:43:31 GMT, zurg <zurg@fakeaddress.com> wrote:

><bullshit snipped>

You are an idiot.

restart@your.computer wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:38:48 +0100, Peter K�hlmann
> <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>><snip>
> 
> Idiot.

Come on now, just because you are incompetent at FUDding is no reason to
feel left out. You are still worthy as something, and be it just as the
proverbial "bad example"
-- 
Support bacteria -- it's the only culture some people have!

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:21:09 +0100, Peter K�hlmann
<Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

><snip>

Idiot.

Milo T. wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:19:51 GMT, Rick wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:22:37 +0000, Milo T. wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:53:44 GMT, mlw wrote:
>>> 
>>>> bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>>>>> hacked.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ROFLMAO!!!
>>>> 
>>>> Yea, I like this quote the best:
>>>> 
>>>> "Both attacks were similarly executed: An attacker managed to garner a
>>>> legitimate user's log-in name and password and then used a recently
>>>> discovered vulnerability in the Linux kernel to gain the rights and
>>>> privileges of the system's owners. "
>>>> 
>>>> I would like to know if *any* system has ever been 100% secure in the
>>>> face of this form of attack. Giving a large number of users interactive
>>>> access to a production machine is *always* a recipe for disaster.
>>>> 
>>>> Alternately, I think in this very same series of events would be a
>>>> slam-dunk under Windows 2k or XP.
>>> 
>>> Excuses, excuses. Anything to take the heat away from the rather
>>> pathetic response of the Linux community in the face of this bug. That
>>> was patched. Several months ago. Yet wasn't distributed to ANYONE.
>>> 
>>> Bwuhahahahahahah.... what a piece of complacent shit the OSS community
>>> has become. Wait for the wheel, folks.
>> 
>> In case no one has reminded lately, you are an asshole. And an ignorant
>> and dishonest one.
> 
> What do you mean, Rick? Are you telling me that the patch for that kernel
> exploit *was* distributed?
> 
> Every security site on the net seems to disagree with that.

the kernel brk() exploit???

Mine was patched on 

uname -a 

Linux big-box 2.4.21-144-athlon #1 Fri Nov 14 00:01:10 UTC 2003 i686 athlon
i386 GNU/Linux

and the kernel was installed by me from SuSE on 29/11/03 19:27:20
but it was available for me before then cos that's when I did my SuSE9
install and initial updates anyway... (SuSE had pre-emptively included the
patch for the brk() exploit along with several other bugfixes that had
become necessary between 9.0 being initially compiled and the release of
9.0)

-- 
COMPUTER POWER TO THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH CYBERCRUD!

you@are.an.idiot wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:21:09 +0100, Peter K�hlmann
> <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>><snip>
> 
> Idiot.

Now, now. You are dangerously close to blow it. Then you can't no longer be
that "bad example". What would you do then, totally out of a job?
-- 
There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.

In article <insetvkt1vpb6ch0eg76ultpl0fij3nj8d@4ax.com>,
Linux Sucks  <linux@sucks.sucks> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:34:34 +0000 (UTC), glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu
>(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>>In article <v4edtv8kdg79k3krek5frnviqijnqjr8fj@4ax.com>,
>> <bogus@invalid.tld> wrote:
>>>In article <pan.2003.12.10.04.42.16.313115@nowhere.com> 
>>>"KRF" <krf@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:34:41 +0000, bogu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>>>>> hacked.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ROFLMAO!!!
>>>>
>>>>If Linux and Unix disappear, then you are stuck with a machine that will
>>>>do nothing but run MS Office and play games since most of the Internet
>>>>runs on either one of those OS's. 
>>>
>>>
>>>You fuckin' idiot.
>>>
>>>Windows computers have great servers and workstations.
>>>
>>>Unlike your stupid, pathetic, boring, retarded, stuck in stone age OS,
>>>Windows have commercial support and hundreds of thousands professionals
>>>to code, support and work with it, compared to goofy, geeky, immature,
>>>retarded, hostile, ignorant and angry college asswipes in Linux.
>>
>>And MSN is still running on the one that the geeky asswipes made.
>
>At least Microsoft have their network, do Linux goofs have something
>similar?
>
>Of course not, they are all nothing but loud mouth dickless idiots.

Wipe your mouth, you're foaming a little.


-- 
"What are the possibilities of small but movable machines?  They may or
may not be useful, but they surely would be fun to make."
    -- Richard P. Feynman, 1959

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:47:30 +0100, Peter K�hlmann
<Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

><snip>

Idiot.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:47:30 +0100, Peter K�hlmann
<Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

><snip>

Idiot.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:50:40 +0000 (UTC), glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

>In article <insetvkt1vpb6ch0eg76ultpl0fij3nj8d@4ax.com>,
>Linux Sucks  <linux@sucks.sucks> wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:34:34 +0000 (UTC), glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu
>>(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <v4edtv8kdg79k3krek5frnviqijnqjr8fj@4ax.com>,
>>> <bogus@invalid.tld> wrote:
>>>>In article <pan.2003.12.10.04.42.16.313115@nowhere.com> 
>>>>"KRF" <krf@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:34:41 +0000, bogu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>>>>>> hacked.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ROFLMAO!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>If Linux and Unix disappear, then you are stuck with a machine that will
>>>>>do nothing but run MS Office and play games since most of the Internet
>>>>>runs on either one of those OS's. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You fuckin' idiot.
>>>>
>>>>Windows computers have great servers and workstations.
>>>>
>>>>Unlike your stupid, pathetic, boring, retarded, stuck in stone age OS,
>>>>Windows have commercial support and hundreds of thousands professionals
>>>>to code, support and work with it, compared to goofy, geeky, immature,
>>>>retarded, hostile, ignorant and angry college asswipes in Linux.
>>>
>>>And MSN is still running on the one that the geeky asswipes made.
>>
>>At least Microsoft have their network, do Linux goofs have something
>>similar?
>>
>>Of course not, they are all nothing but loud mouth dickless idiots.
>
>Wipe your mouth, you're foaming a little.

Shut the fuck up, bitch.

Bend over again.

restart@your.computer wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:47:30 +0100, Peter K�hlmann
> <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>><snip>
> 
> Idiot.

Got yourself riled that much at the prospect to lose the job as "bad
example" that you had to post it twice? Now now, relax. All is not lost
-- 
All things are possible, except skiing thru a revolving door.

In article <3v1ftvkij9kcau5j26dsad4965iqovp928@4ax.com>,
 <restart@your.computer> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:50:40 +0000 (UTC), glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu
>(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>>In article <insetvkt1vpb6ch0eg76ultpl0fij3nj8d@4ax.com>,
>>Linux Sucks  <linux@sucks.sucks> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:34:34 +0000 (UTC), glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu
>>>(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <v4edtv8kdg79k3krek5frnviqijnqjr8fj@4ax.com>,
>>>> <bogus@invalid.tld> wrote:
>>>>>In article <pan.2003.12.10.04.42.16.313115@nowhere.com> 
>>>>>"KRF" <krf@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:34:41 +0000, bogu wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>>>>>>> hacked.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ROFLMAO!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If Linux and Unix disappear, then you are stuck with a machine that will
>>>>>>do nothing but run MS Office and play games since most of the Internet
>>>>>>runs on either one of those OS's. 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You fuckin' idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>>Windows computers have great servers and workstations.
>>>>>
>>>>>Unlike your stupid, pathetic, boring, retarded, stuck in stone age OS,
>>>>>Windows have commercial support and hundreds of thousands professionals
>>>>>to code, support and work with it, compared to goofy, geeky, immature,
>>>>>retarded, hostile, ignorant and angry college asswipes in Linux.
>>>>
>>>>And MSN is still running on the one that the geeky asswipes made.
>>>
>>>At least Microsoft have their network, do Linux goofs have something
>>>similar?
>>>
>>>Of course not, they are all nothing but loud mouth dickless idiots.
>>
>>Wipe your mouth, you're foaming a little.
>
>Shut the fuck up, bitch.
>
>Bend over again.

Apparantly, this is what using Windows does to people.


-- 
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he 
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

> In article <3v1ftvkij9kcau5j26dsad4965iqovp928@4ax.com>,
>  <restart@your.computer> wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:50:40 +0000 (UTC), glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu
>>(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <insetvkt1vpb6ch0eg76ultpl0fij3nj8d@4ax.com>,
>>>Linux Sucks  <linux@sucks.sucks> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:34:34 +0000 (UTC), glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu
>>>>(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <v4edtv8kdg79k3krek5frnviqijnqjr8fj@4ax.com>,
>>>>> <bogus@invalid.tld> wrote:
>>>>>>In article <pan.2003.12.10.04.42.16.313115@nowhere.com>
>>>>>>"KRF" <krf@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:34:41 +0000, bogu wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot
>>>>>>>> be hacked.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ROFLMAO!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If Linux and Unix disappear, then you are stuck with a machine that
>>>>>>>will do nothing but run MS Office and play games since most of the
>>>>>>>Internet runs on either one of those OS's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You fuckin' idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Windows computers have great servers and workstations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Unlike your stupid, pathetic, boring, retarded, stuck in stone age OS,
>>>>>>Windows have commercial support and hundreds of thousands
>>>>>>professionals to code, support and work with it, compared to goofy,
>>>>>>geeky, immature, retarded, hostile, ignorant and angry college
>>>>>>asswipes in Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>>And MSN is still running on the one that the geeky asswipes made.
>>>>
>>>>At least Microsoft have their network, do Linux goofs have something
>>>>similar?
>>>>
>>>>Of course not, they are all nothing but loud mouth dickless idiots.
>>>
>>>Wipe your mouth, you're foaming a little.
>>
>>Shut the fuck up, bitch.
>>
>>Bend over again.
> 
> Apparantly, this is what using Windows does to people.
> 
> 

Not really. This is the kind of people who use windows. Not out of choice,
probably. But to use something else seems to be way over their head

-- 
Designed for Windows. No user serviceable parts inside.  By design

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:38:23 +0000, Milo T. wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:19:51 GMT, Rick wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:22:37 +0000, Milo T. wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:53:44 GMT, mlw wrote:
>>> 
>>>> bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>>>>> hacked.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ROFLMAO!!!
>>>> 
>>>> Yea, I like this quote the best:
>>>> 
>>>> "Both attacks were similarly executed: An attacker managed to garner a
>>>> legitimate user's log-in name and password and then used a recently
>>>> discovered vulnerability in the Linux kernel to gain the rights and
>>>> privileges of the system's owners. "
>>>> 
>>>> I would like to know if *any* system has ever been 100% secure in the face
>>>> of this form of attack. Giving a large number of users interactive access
>>>> to a production machine is *always* a recipe for disaster.
>>>> 
>>>> Alternately, I think in this very same series of events would be a slam-dunk
>>>> under Windows 2k or XP.
>>> 
>>> Excuses, excuses. Anything to take the heat away from the rather pathetic
>>> response of the Linux community in the face of this bug. That was patched.
>>> Several months ago. Yet wasn't distributed to ANYONE.
>>> 
>>> Bwuhahahahahahah.... what a piece of complacent shit the OSS community has
>>> become. Wait for the wheel, folks.
>> 
>> In case no one has reminded lately, you are an asshole. And an ignorant
>> and dishonest one.
> 
> What do you mean, Rick? Are you telling me that the patch for that kernel
> exploit *was* distributed? 

No, I'm just reminding you that you are a lying asshole.

> 
> Every security site on the net seems to disagree with that.

-- 
Rick

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:29:02 +0000, restart wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:46:28 GMT, Matt Costanza
> <mcostanza@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> 
>>bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
>>
>>> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>>> hacked.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ROFLMAO!!!
>>> 
>>> 
>>
>>No OS that is networkable is totally secure. 
> 
> Linux advocate morons claim otherwise.

Really?  Show us one person who a) knows what they're talking about and b)
claims any system can be totally secure, short of dropping a nuke on it,
in which case, sure, it can't be hacked, but it can't do much, either.

I suspect you're reading "Linux is secure" as an absolute; it's not. 
It's a relative - relative to Windows, and relative to the expected
intensity of the attacks it must withstand.

For example, a non-firewalled Linux box with assorted servers running has
one degree of security.  Adding a firewall increases security.  Disabling
unneeded services increases security still more.  As does moving to, say,
SELinux.  As does installing intrusion detection software and the likes. 
And so on and so forth.

You want the best security you can get?  Simple: firewall, disable
everything but the single port (or small number of ports) you absolutely
must have running, use SELinux or some variant, use intrusion detection,
stay on top of security updates and the like and actually pay attention to
what the system is doing.  Oh, and do _not_ allow logons.  Remote
administration logons, protected by port knocking, could be okay... but
don't allow anyone who doesn't absolutely have to have access - i.e.
admins - to have access.

That's about as good as you're going to get.  But... just for kicks...
let's take a gander at actually implementing all this.

In my Mandrake distro, with an update source selected, I have several
security-enhanced kernels to choose from.  I have tools to capture and
analyze every network packet if I choose.  I have prelude and snort,
for intrusion detection.  I have iptables and shorewall for firewalling. I
have trivially easy updating which allows me to select _just_ the security
updates if I wish.

Of course, all this stuff does wonderfully helpful logging... and I can
configure the logging to, among other things, e-mail me.  I can
automagically limit connection attempts based on rate, with allowances for
bursts.

Keep in mind, this _all_ came with my distro... which, BTW, I downloaded
for free.

Now, let's see... the latest consumer version of Windows is what, XP? 
Okay, good.  It comes with a firewall, right?  Sure.  Does it have the
sort of flexibility that iptables has?  No.

Okay, well, fine - but XP has intrusion detection, custom kernels for
increased security, packet logging and the like, right?  Whoops, nope, not
out of the box, it don't.

How about updates?  If I'm running, say, Apache under Windows, the Windows
Update interface _includes_ any updates to Apache, the way my Mandrake
update tool does, right?  Oops, nope, it doesn't.  Heck, it doesn't even
include MS Office updates, last I checked.

So... with the tools I get, for free, bundled with my distro, I can lock
down the box with a firewall, use intrusion detection, use a secure kernel
and get a nice, coherent interface which provides listings of security
updates for virtually everything I have installed... and which, in
virtually all cases, can be installed and applied without need to reboot,
thus allowing me to leave unaffected services unaffected.

Oh, and if I'm *really* paranoid... I can audit the source code myself. 
As a consumer, where do I get the Windows XP sources to examine?

Net result: out of the box, Linux beats Windows hands-down for security. 
Maybe - *maybe* - you can make Windows as secure as Linux... but it ain't
gonna be easy.  For me, it's a dozen or so mouse clicks and maybe one
reboot, if I need to install one of the updated kernels.  Oh, I'll
probably have to set up some user groups and the like - but so do you. 
Either way, I'm way ahead of the game, with less work, likely less cost,
and I have the option to audit the code - you don't.

>>It is very clear that the
>>options one has to hack Linux is very small in comparison to a Windows
>>based system. For instance, a windows based system can easily be
>>compromised just by using the holes in Internet Explorer. You cannot do
>>that type of damage on a Linux based system using Mozilla.
> 
> That's because it has little market to bother with

No, that's not the reason.  The reason is that it is simply more difficult
to do these things.

Take, as an example, a security issue in IE.  How many things use IE to
perform work?  Office does, IIRC.  OE.  Windows Explorer.  Probably more
things.  A single flaw thus affects a half dozen or more applications.

A flaw in Mozilla, however, affects _Mozilla_.  Not kmail, not pan,
not mplayer, just mozilla.

An e-mail with active scripting behind it, sent to OE, actually _does_
things, active things; the same e-mail sent to kmail simply shows up as
source code.  The latter offers a considerably higher barrier to doing
anything malicious.  It's also a large reason viruses never made it in
Linux - transporting them is just too big a pain.

Then again, even if you did find a flaw in kmail that allowed you to
compromise a system, it's unlikely that the same exploit would affect
users of evolution, or mutt.  So even if you find a vulnerability, your
range of victims is limited by the sheer choice of apps available.  With
Windows, it's almost certain, for any given Windows box, that the user
will be using either OE or Outlook for mail; the number that use anything
else is miniscule by comparison.  Not so in Linux; just because they're
running Linux doesn't mean they're running the same mail client.


> and don't forget,
> all the Linux goofy script kiddies who have nothing better to do in
> their lives other than trying to find holes in Microsoft related
> software.

I suspect this is just false.  Or do you have data to back up the idea
that it is _Linux_ users who are spawning the endless barrage of Windows
attacks?

 restart@your.computer wrote:

does any of this stupid shit have anything to do with amiga computers?




kvn

In article <ulsetv4v24fsg98le44aktc2qollltmfon@4ax.com>, Linux Sucks
<linux@sucks.sucks> wrote:

> Price, those are cheap bastards, that's why.

Every Mac user who has been accused of paying too much for their
machine when Wintel alternatives were available for much less money
will savor the irony of this comment.

zurg wrote:

> In article <ulsetv4v24fsg98le44aktc2qollltmfon@4ax.com>, Linux Sucks
> <linux@sucks.sucks> wrote:
> 
>> Price, those are cheap bastards, that's why.
> 
> Every Mac user who has been accused of paying too much for their
> machine when Wintel alternatives were available for much less money
> will savor the irony of this comment.

Well, what do you know, you "argue" with one of the dumbest windroids ever. 
He can't make up his mind
-- 
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous

Linux Sucks wrote:


> 
> At least Microsoft have their network, do Linux goofs have something
> similar?


Are you referring to MSN? The very ISP business group of Microsoft that 
has lost money (and continues to do so to this very day) since it's 
inception?

BTW, care to guess what platform supports hotmail?


> 
> Of course not, they are all nothing but loud mouth dickless idiots.


Since you don't have any actual knowledge on insight, your only option 
is to call people names. Maybe you should come back to the discussion 
when you actually have some information to add to the discussion.

Regards,
--
Matt Costanza
Austin, Tx USA

 

Linux Sucks wrote:

>>>
>>If that is the case, why does every ISP on the planet use a Linux server 
>>for hosting email or why is Apache used instead of a Microsoft web 
>>server product?
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Price, those are cheap bastards, that's why.


Thanks for playing. Maybe you should stay in 
rec.I'm.not.smart.enough.for.the.discussion. I'm sure you will fit right 
in.

Regards,
--
Matt Costanza
Austin, Tx USA

 

Peter K�hlmann wrote:


> Well, what do you know, you "argue" with one of the dumbest windroids
> ever. He can't make up his mind

Quirk Objection!

-- 
Donovan Hill

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, MuahMan
<muahman@msn.com>
 wrote
on Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:48:47 -0500
<kisBb.7974$4t2.6452@bignews4.bellsouth.net>:
> The more it gains market share the more it will be hacked. Do we ever get to
> blame the hackers for any of this or is it always the OS'es fault?

For Linux, it's always the fault of the OS.

For Windows, it's always the fault of the hacker.

See how that works?

:-)

(I don't remember which applies for Macintosh or Amiga. :-) )

>
> <bogus@invalid.tld> wrote in message
> news:vbjctv456fdrtcphqq4ur2rs0uqqhl6cme@4ax.com...
>> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
>> hacked.
>>
>>
>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
>>
>>
>> ROFLMAO!!!
>>
>
>


-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

restart@your.computer wrote in <l0tetv4hldr3a7rfd4t9eqouphefno05df@4ax.com> at
December 10, 2003 02:32 pm

> 
>><run on bullshit from Linux dirtbag deleted>
> 
> It seems that you need to get some education, dickhead.
> 
[snip]
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> Hey jackass, try to check your facts before making a complete ass out of
> yourself on usenet, you douchebag.
> 
> 

Oh, yes, I can see how your education is shining through.
I bet I have more University level degrees than the number of grades
you have completed in high school. I could go on to tell you about
my BSc, Msc and PhD but you would not even understand the names of
the subjects. In fact, I doubt you know what those letter combinations
mean and you assume that I am using bad language on you...

-- 
Windows = A 32 bit extension to a GUI shell to a 16 bit patch to an 
8 bit OS originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor and sold by a 
2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
LGX = A true 64 bit OS, running on HW from wrist-watch to mainframes.

"Milo T." <fantastical@malaprop.net> wrote in message news:<17j0e1gc3z79n$.a45hxl9rml0y@fanatastical.malaprop.net>...
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:53:44 GMT, mlw wrote:
> 
> > bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
> > 
> >> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
> >> hacked.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
> >> 
> >> 
> >> ROFLMAO!!!
> > 
> > Yea, I like this quote the best:
> > 
> > "Both attacks were similarly executed: An attacker managed to garner a
> > legitimate user's log-in name and password and then used a recently
> > discovered vulnerability in the Linux kernel to gain the rights and
> > privileges of the system's owners. "
> > 
> > I would like to know if *any* system has ever been 100% secure in the face
> > of this form of attack. Giving a large number of users interactive access
> > to a production machine is *always* a recipe for disaster.
> > 
> > Alternately, I think in this very same series of events would be a slam-dunk
> > under Windows 2k or XP.
> 
> Excuses, excuses. Anything to take the heat away from the rather pathetic
> response of the Linux community in the face of this bug. That was patched.
> Several months ago. Yet wasn't distributed to ANYONE.
> 
> Bwuhahahahahahah.... what a piece of complacent shit the OSS community has
> become. Wait for the wheel, folks.

I can't ever remember any Linux community member saying that Linux is
100% immune to bugs, worms/viruses and hackers are a completely
different security problem.

What the Linux community argue is that with Linux fixes to bugs and
worms/viruses are handled far more quickly than with Closed Source
Software e.g. MS Windows. And that Linux has fewer problems with worms
and software viruses than MS Windows.

None of your cited article contradicts these fundamental assertions. 

If someone with malicious intent gains user login access then your
system is clearly compromised and there is nothing that can be done
apart from making users change passwords including mixing letters and
numbers not allowing dictionary words, and changing passwords when
employees leave etc.. etc..

So really I don't know what your point is? Some Linux systems had a
problem the problem was discovered and fixed but the patch for
whatever reason was not fixed. Upon being "re-discovred" for want of a
better word, the patch was released. Where exactly is the problem? Or
you unaware of the many failings of the current MS Windows operating
system that allows virus writers access to a whole bunch of API's that
allow their malicious code to propagate?

Have a nice day :)

In article <3FD7BFCC.8050501@austin.rr.com> 
Matt Costanza <mcostanza@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>Linux Sucks wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>If that is the case, why does every ISP on the planet use a Linux server 
>>>for hosting email or why is Apache used instead of a Microsoft web 
>>>server product?
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> Price, those are cheap bastards, that's why.
>
>
>Thanks for playing. Maybe you should stay in 
>rec.I'm.not.smart.enough.for.the.discussion. I'm sure you will fit right 
>in.
>

Maybe you should stay under the bridge, douchebag.
Your IQ is still stuck in the single digit area.

In article
<HtPBb.38217$r%u1.8595@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> 
Ian Amuhton <abuse@msn.com> wrote:

>Oh, yes, I can see how your education is shining through.

Well that opened up your wounds, didn't it?
I reminded you that you need an education, badly.


>I bet I have more University level degrees than the number of grades
>you have completed in high school. I could go on to tell you about
>my BSc, Msc and PhD but you would not even understand the names of
>the subjects. 

Sure, dreaming helps a retarded jackass like you.
You're trolling on usenet, and your childish email address that you are
forging abuse@msn.com says it all about your age and level of education
and mentality, Phd my ass.

You wouldn't know what's the meaning of Phd if your life depended on it,
you shitbrick.

In article <aee685f1.0312101824.423bb6e2@posting.google.com> 
fugacious@yahoo.com (mark) wrote:

>
>I can't ever remember any Linux community member saying that Linux is
>100% immune to bugs, worms/viruses and hackers are a completely
>different security problem.
>

Do a search in google.

>What the Linux community argue is that with Linux fixes to bugs and
>worms/viruses are handled far more quickly than with Closed Source
>Software e.g. MS Windows. And that Linux has fewer problems with worms
>and software viruses than MS Windows.

Which is a total bullshit.

Linux doesn't have thousands of script kiddies obsessed in finding holes
in it.

Linux security holes do not get published and get all the attention as
Windows does.

In fact if you are subscribed to any Linux security mailing list you get
at least 4-5 security alerts and patches a week, I get 4-5 Windows
related security alerts a month.

bogus@invalid.tld wrote in <q5nftvg24tbrgplu3cgcnmmibk121f0un8@4ax.com> at
December 10, 2003 10:05 pm

> In article
> <HtPBb.38217$r%u1.8595@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
> Ian Amuhton <abuse@msn.com> wrote:
> 
>>Oh, yes, I can see how your education is shining through.
> 
> Well that opened up your wounds, didn't it?
> I reminded you that you need an education, badly.
> 
> 
>>I bet I have more University level degrees than the number of grades
>>you have completed in high school. I could go on to tell you about
>>my BSc, Msc and PhD but you would not even understand the names of
>>the subjects.
> 
> Sure, dreaming helps a retarded jackass like you.
> You're trolling on usenet, and your childish email address that you are
> forging abuse@msn.com says it all about your age and level of education
> and mentality, Phd my ass.
> 
> You wouldn't know what's the meaning of Phd if your life depended on it,
> you shitbrick.

You have again demonstrated your lack of elementary school education.
Let me give you a challenge:
1. I post here the abstract of my PhD thesis (written in 1995), then you
may ask as many technical questions, details about the thesis as you wish
and I will answer them with specificity.
2. Thus I can prove my claim to anybody with sufficient knowledge and
understanding of the subject. If you are unable to challenge me on the
subject, that simply proves my point, that your education level is way
below mine.
3. Once this matter is such settled, you should make a public apology and
retract your accusations quoted above. Of course, I do not expect you
to behave in such civilized way. But your failure to do so will simply
further demonstrate the very low level of your intelligence - a disgrace
for the species.

So, here is the abstract of my PhD thesis:

\begin{document}
\title{New Method for {\it de Novo} 3D Structure Design}
\date{PhD thesis, March 1995.}
\section*{Abstract}

An automatic, interactive computer system for \textsl{de novo} structure
based molecular design is currently under development in the University of
Leeds.  The system consists of several modules addressing different
subproblems of structure based drug design: detection of protein clefts,
identification of potential interaction sites, primary molecular structure
generation, conversion of primary structures into molecules and analysis
of the solutions. This thesis describes the author's contributions to this
project, which are concerned with the identification of interaction sites,
primary structure generation, docking of molecular structures into a
receptor site and the visualisation techniques used in the graphical
interface of the system.

Other existing molecular structure generation methods are reviewed, with
particular reference to \textsl{de novo} drug design programs. The structure
generation method which was used earlier in the project is briefly described
and its limitations are analysed.

A brief introduction to the geometric aspects of hydrogen bonding is given.
Automatic methods to identify hydrogen bonding interaction sites in proteins
are overviewed. A new interaction site identification program has been
developed, which has some novel features compared to the existing programs.

A new structure generation program has been developed and implemented. A rapid
geometric rigid body docking method has been developed that is applied to the
generated molecular structures exploring full rotational and translational
freedom in order to find the best orientation for binding to the interaction
sites. The applied algorithms and heuristics are described.

The programs mentioned above have been tested on three protein structures.
The test results presented also demonstrate the graphical visualisation
techniques.  The performance of the structure generation program is found
to be superior to that of the other program which was used earlier in the
project. The tests show that the approach taken provides an effective and
practical solution to real problems.
\end{document}

-- 
Windows = A 32 bit extension to a GUI shell to a 16 bit patch to an 
8 bit OS originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor and sold by a 
2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
LGX = A true 64 bit OS, running on HW from wrist-watch to mainframes.

In a moment of profound enlightenment, bogus@invalid.tld wrote:

> Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and
> cannot be hacked.
> 
> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html

The last two paragraphs of the article sum it up nicely:

"'Malicious attackers are less of a worry', Torvalds said, 'than
simple mistakes. 

'Personally, I worry a lot more about just plain bugs', Torvalds
said. 'Whatever kernel weakness people find is much more likely
to be just a silly bug--like the one Debian got bit by--than
some clever cracker doing bad things.'"

And the reasons for this are instructive:

"'Other aspects of the open-source development model also remove
some of the worry', said Erenkrantz. 'The distributed nature of
development means that many other repositories of source code
will be available to check the integrity of the code on the
main server. 

'In the event of an apache.org compromise, we can verify that
each developer is in sync with the repository--that is, (that)
there has been no malicious insertion of code', Erenkrantz
said. 

"Torvalds echoed the sentiment, saying that even in the event
that the main server for kernel development gets compromised,
the open-source community has other checks and balances."

Microsoft's take on it seems to be that Open Source is less
secure than Microsoft software (surprise!) because of its
openness. They suggest in the article that users of Open Source
are on their own when it comes to providing security code
audits, and that it is better to leave those issues to closed
source developers (them).

That is not surprising. Microsoft has a vested interest in
keeping customers blissfully dependent on them. But the truth
of the matter is that there is superb support for Open Source
software. Security audits are not left to end users as the
recent Debian security breach illustrates.

The Hole was noticed, diagnosed, and a fix was provided that has
since propagated to every major Linux distribution. The Debian
incident was rare for Linux in a way that is quite common on
Windows. The problem was noticed only after the flaw was
exploited. Usually holes in security are found and fixed before
an exploit can be used. Windows security breaches are found
only after a hole is exploited. And it is because of the closed
source nature of Windows and the Open Source nature of Linux
that this is so.

Windows is plagued by worms and Trojan horses that have little
trouble touching every part of a Windows system and very little
trouble gaining entrance--email attachments that execute with
the click of a mouse and VBA macros that run when a document is
opened are the most common methods of gaining entry and
running. Once up and running these malicious programs usually
have complete access to the system. Propagation is simplified
by ActiveX components in Outlook that enable automatic scanning
of addresses for re-delivery.

Such simple methods will not work on a Linux system. Even if
attachments could be executed as programs or if macros in
documents ran when opened, local security measures would
contain the virus to one user's filespace.

The big philosophical difference between Windows and Linux from
a security standpoint is that Microsoft began dealing with
security only when they had to, which means it was, and
remains, an afterthought. Security is a feature of Linux that
has been part of the design of Unix-based systems for 30 years.

-- 
Scott Bicknell
Mail sbicknel; to sbc_no-spam_global_dot_net
replace to with @; remove _no-spam_; replace _dot_ with "."

Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
 and this is what they wrote:

[...]

> So, here is the abstract of my PhD thesis:
>
> \begin{document}
> \title{New Method for {\it de Novo} 3D Structure Design}
> \date{PhD thesis, March 1995.}
> \section*{Abstract}
>
> An automatic, interactive computer system for \textsl{de novo} structure
> based molecular design is currently under development in the University of
> Leeds.

Nice, another LaTeX user!

Readers will note this is the actual saved file for Ians PhD thesis,
and it's in perfectly readable Accii text. Ian will *always* be able to
access his Phd.

Lets have a look at a MICROS~1 Word file ?
^T6^U^M^M^M^M^M^M^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@
^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@
^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^

Lovely!




-- 
              Kind Regards from Terry 
    My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2   
         New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/          
 ** Linux Registration Number: 103931,  http://counter.li.org **

Terry drooled & blabbered on Thu, 11 Dec 2003 at 11:31 GMT:

> Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
>  and this is what they wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> So, here is the abstract of my PhD thesis:
>>
>> \begin{document}
>> \title{New Method for {\it de Novo} 3D Structure Design}
>> \date{PhD thesis, March 1995.}
>> \section*{Abstract}
>>
>> An automatic, interactive computer system for \textsl{de novo} structure
>> based molecular design is currently under development in the University of
>> Leeds.
> 
> Nice, another LaTeX user!
> 
> Readers will note this is the actual saved file for Ians PhD thesis,
> and it's in perfectly readable Accii text. Ian will *always* be able to
> access his Phd.
> 
> Lets have a look at a MICROS~1 Word file ?
> ^T6^U^M^M^M^M^M^M^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@
> ^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@
> ^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^
> 
> Lovely!

Hey! The Windoozies will _always_ be able to get that kind of output.
It won't matter a bit how MICROS~1 changes "standards" tomorrow or the
next day. Both the new and old stuff will look like that when they go
to view it in 3 or 4 years!

-- 
Aren't you glad you use linux? Don't you wish everybody did?

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:07:48 GMT, bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
> In article <aee685f1.0312101824.423bb6e2@posting.google.com> 
> fugacious@yahoo.com (mark) wrote:
>
>>
>>I can't ever remember any Linux community member saying that Linux is
>>100% immune to bugs, worms/viruses and hackers are a completely
>>different security problem.
>>
>
> Do a search in google.
>
>>What the Linux community argue is that with Linux fixes to bugs and
>>worms/viruses are handled far more quickly than with Closed Source
>>Software e.g. MS Windows. And that Linux has fewer problems with worms
>>and software viruses than MS Windows.
>
> Which is a total bullshit.
>
> Linux doesn't have thousands of script kiddies obsessed in finding holes
> in it.
>
> Linux security holes do not get published and get all the attention as
> Windows does.
>
> In fact if you are subscribed to any Linux security mailing list you get
> at least 4-5 security alerts and patches a week, I get 4-5 Windows
> related security alerts a month.

Excellent point.  This has been noted in several industry journals.
Windows suffers from the "lowest common denominator" effect, where Linux
does not.  When Linux surpasses Windows on the desktop we'll see how
many bugs Linux really has.

-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
 9:00AM  up 20 days, 11:11, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

General Protection Fault wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:07:48 GMT, bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
>> In article <aee685f1.0312101824.423bb6e2@posting.google.com>
>> fugacious@yahoo.com (mark) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I can't ever remember any Linux community member saying that Linux is
>>>100% immune to bugs, worms/viruses and hackers are a completely
>>>different security problem.
>>>
>>
>> Do a search in google.
>>
>>>What the Linux community argue is that with Linux fixes to bugs and
>>>worms/viruses are handled far more quickly than with Closed Source
>>>Software e.g. MS Windows. And that Linux has fewer problems with worms
>>>and software viruses than MS Windows.
>>
>> Which is a total bullshit.
>>
>> Linux doesn't have thousands of script kiddies obsessed in finding holes
>> in it.
>>
>> Linux security holes do not get published and get all the attention as
>> Windows does.
>>
>> In fact if you are subscribed to any Linux security mailing list you get
>> at least 4-5 security alerts and patches a week, I get 4-5 Windows
>> related security alerts a month.
> 
> Excellent point.  This has been noted in several industry journals.
> Windows suffers from the "lowest common denominator" effect, where Linux
> does not.  When Linux surpasses Windows on the desktop we'll see how
> many bugs Linux really has.
> 

No point at all. For linux, you get the patches for the OS *and* the apps.
For windows, you get the patches for the OS only. And then are they even
bundled to let it appear that fewer bugs are patched.
Of those security patches this year, there were perhaps 5 - 6 patches for
bugs in stuff belonging to the OS itself. All the other patches were for
apps, lots of them for apps which I don't even have installed.
At least try to do a fair comparison
-- 
Real programmers don't comment their code.  It was hard to write, 
it should be hard to understand.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:31:40 +1100, Terry wrote:

> Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
>  and this is what they wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> So, here is the abstract of my PhD thesis:
>>
>> \begin{document}
>> \title{New Method for {\it de Novo} 3D Structure Design}
>> \date{PhD thesis, March 1995.}
>> \section*{Abstract}
>>
>> An automatic, interactive computer system for \textsl{de novo} structure
>> based molecular design is currently under development in the University of
>> Leeds.
> 
> Nice, another LaTeX user!
> 
> Readers will note this is the actual saved file for Ians PhD thesis,
> and it's in perfectly readable Accii text. Ian will *always* be able to
> access his Phd.

One has to wonder why he didn't post it without the extraneous markup,
however.

Oh, and Terry... it's ASCII, not Accii. But hey, what should we expect from
a dimbulb who doesn't even know what Unicode is.
-- 
People in the killfile (and whose posts I won't read) as of 12/11/2003
8:22:11 AM:
Peter Kohlmann, T.Max Devlin.

Milo T. wrote in <1n5egoqagt0q8$.1u4etbvakyvam$@fanatastical.malaprop.net> at
December 11, 2003 11:23 am

> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:31:40 +1100, Terry wrote:
> 
>> Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
>>  and this is what they wrote:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>> So, here is the abstract of my PhD thesis:
>>>
>>> \begin{document}
>>> \title{New Method for {\it de Novo} 3D Structure Design}
>>> \date{PhD thesis, March 1995.}
>>> \section*{Abstract}
>>>
>>> An automatic, interactive computer system for \textsl{de novo} structure
>>> based molecular design is currently under development in the University of
>>> Leeds.
>> 
>> Nice, another LaTeX user!
>> 
>> Readers will note this is the actual saved file for Ians PhD thesis,
>> and it's in perfectly readable Accii text. Ian will *always* be able to
>> access his Phd.
> 
> One has to wonder why he didn't post it without the extraneous markup,
> however.
> 
It was much quicker to cut & paste this way: a less command, 1 drag with
left mouse button, then a click with the middle button. I did not bother
removing the markup, it is readable as is. In fact, the markup provides
extra semantic information.

-- 
Windows = A 32 bit extension to a GUI shell to a 16 bit patch to an 
8 bit OS originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor and sold by a 
2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
LGX = A true 64 bit OS, running on HW from wrist-watch to mainframes.

Terry wrote in <s51ma1-6je.ln1@gronk.porter.net> at December 11, 2003 06:31 am

> Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
>  and this is what they wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> So, here is the abstract of my PhD thesis:
>>
>> \begin{document}
>> \title{New Method for {\it de Novo} 3D Structure Design}
>> \date{PhD thesis, March 1995.}
>> \section*{Abstract}
>>
>> An automatic, interactive computer system for \textsl{de novo} structure
>> based molecular design is currently under development in the University of
>> Leeds.
> 
> Nice, another LaTeX user!
> 
Of course. It is the de facto standard in scientific publishing. 
For example, check out the Elsevier Author Guide (on the right-hand
menu from the URL): http://authors.elsevier.com/

They talk about two formats for accepting publications:
1. Text files - here they say:
"We can accept most word-processing formats 
[snip]
Most formatting codes are removed or replaced when we process your article so
there is no need for you to use excessive layout styling."

2. LaTeX files - here they say:
"Preparing typeset articles with LaTeX
For those authors who use LaTeX to write their articles, we have developed the
Elsevier LaTeX package.
...."

So, basically if you use LaTeX, you already do the typesetting, they will just
plug in your article without much extra work. On the other hand any other
format is considered just raw text and they will do the formatting in LaTeX.

> Readers will note this is the actual saved file for Ians PhD thesis,
> and it's in perfectly readable Accii text. Ian will *always* be able to
> access his Phd.
> 
In fact, I wrote that on SGI IRIX, and now I can work with it on Linux
without any conversion and it produces _identical_ output. I could also
use it on MS Windows or Mac - although I do not intend to :-)

-- 
Windows = A 32 bit extension to a GUI shell to a 16 bit patch to an 
8 bit OS originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor and sold by a 
2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
LGX = A true 64 bit OS, running on HW from wrist-watch to mainframes.

In article <s51ma1-6je.ln1@gronk.porter.net>, Terry wrote:
> Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
>  and this is what they wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> So, here is the abstract of my PhD thesis:
>>
>> \begin{document}
>> \title{New Method for {\it de Novo} 3D Structure Design}
>> \date{PhD thesis, March 1995.}
>> \section*{Abstract}
>>
>> An automatic, interactive computer system for \textsl{de novo} structure
>> based molecular design is currently under development in the University of
>> Leeds.
> 
> Nice, another LaTeX user!

And here; in fact, I also used latex to make the slides for my defense
(as I do for conference presentations), using the prosper class
(http://prosper.sourceforge.net).

Cheers,
Darrin

Sinister Midget threw some tea leaves on the floor
 and this is what they wrote:

> Terry drooled & blabbered on Thu, 11 Dec 2003 at 11:31 GMT:
>
>> Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
>>  and this is what they wrote:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>> So, here is the abstract of my PhD thesis:
>>>
>>> \begin{document}
>>> \title{New Method for {\it de Novo} 3D Structure Design}
>>> \date{PhD thesis, March 1995.}
>>> \section*{Abstract}
>>>
>>> An automatic, interactive computer system for \textsl{de novo} structure
>>> based molecular design is currently under development in the University of
>>> Leeds.
>> 
>> Nice, another LaTeX user!
>> 
>> Readers will note this is the actual saved file for Ians PhD thesis,
>> and it's in perfectly readable Accii text. Ian will *always* be able to
>> access his Phd.
>> 
>> Lets have a look at a MICROS~1 Word file ?
>> ^T6^U^M^M^M^M^M^M^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@
>> ^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@
>> ^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^
>> 
>> Lovely!
>
> Hey! The Windoozies will _always_ be able to get that kind of output.
> It won't matter a bit how MICROS~1 changes "standards" tomorrow or the
> next day. Both the new and old stuff will look like that when they go
> to view it in 3 or 4 years!

<Chuckle>.

-- 
              Kind Regards from Terry 
    My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2   
         New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/          
 ** Linux Registration Number: 103931,  http://counter.li.org **

Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
 and this is what they wrote:

> Terry wrote in <s51ma1-6je.ln1@gronk.porter.net> at December 11, 2003 06:31 am
>
>> Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
>>  and this is what they wrote:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>> So, here is the abstract of my PhD thesis:
>>>
>>> \begin{document}
>>> \title{New Method for {\it de Novo} 3D Structure Design}
>>> \date{PhD thesis, March 1995.}
>>> \section*{Abstract}
>>>
>>> An automatic, interactive computer system for \textsl{de novo} structure
>>> based molecular design is currently under development in the University of
>>> Leeds.
>> 
>> Nice, another LaTeX user!
>> 
> Of course. It is the de facto standard in scientific publishing. 
> For example, check out the Elsevier Author Guide (on the right-hand
> menu from the URL): http://authors.elsevier.com/
>
> They>I could also
> use it on MS Windows or Mac - although I do not intend to :-)
>
> -- 
> Windows = A 32 bit extension to a GUI shell to a 16 bit patch to an 
> 8 bit OS originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor and sold by a 
> 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
> LGX = A true 64 bit OS, running on HW from wrist-watch to mainframes.

 talk about two formats for accepting publications:
> 1. Text files - here they say:
> "We can accept most word-processing formats 
> [snip]
> Most formatting codes are removed or replaced when we process your article so
> there is no need for you to use excessive layout styling."
>
> 2. LaTeX files - here they say:
> "Preparing typeset articles with LaTeX
> For those authors who use LaTeX to write their articles, we have developed the
> Elsevier LaTeX package.
> ..."
>
> So, basically if you use LaTeX, you already do the typesetting, they will just
> plug in your article without much extra work.

Smooth as silk :)

> On the other hand any other
> format is considered just raw text and they will do the formatting in LaTeX.
>
>> Readers will note this is the actual saved file for Ians PhD thesis,
>> and it's in perfectly readable Accii text. Ian will *always* be able to
>> access his Phd.
>> 
> In fact, I wrote that on SGI IRIX, and now I can work with it on Linux
> without any conversion and it produces _identical_ output.

The benefit of *real* standards! A total pleasure to read :)

[...] 

-- 
              Kind Regards from Terry 
    My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2   
         New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/          
 ** Linux Registration Number: 103931,  http://counter.li.org **

Darrin Edwards threw some tea leaves on the floor
 and this is what they wrote:

> In article <s51ma1-6je.ln1@gronk.porter.net>, Terry wrote:
>> Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
>>  and this is what they wrote:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>> So, here is the abstract of my PhD thesis:
>>>
>>> \begin{document}
>>> \title{New Method for {\it de Novo} 3D Structure Design}
>>> \date{PhD thesis, March 1995.}
>>> \section*{Abstract}
>>>
>>> An automatic, interactive computer system for \textsl{de novo} structure
>>> based molecular design is currently under development in the University of
>>> Leeds.
>> 
>> Nice, another LaTeX user!
>
> And here; in fact, I also used latex to make the slides for my defense
> (as I do for conference presentations), using the prosper class
> (http://prosper.sourceforge.net).

Cool, I also used Prosper to do a LaTeX presentation at the local
GNU/Linux User Group 6 weeks ago, and will be using it again next week
for my talk on setting up and using SQL-Ledger :)

This time however we have a LCD color projector supplied by our host,
so the Prosper slides will be in colour!

I'm putting together a headless pc running GNU/Linux (naturally) with no
keyboard. All it will have is a switch on a cable that plugs
into the parallel port, and has a forward and reverse button for the
Prosper slides.

I'll set it up for each LUG meeting using a NIC and just plugging it
into my home network.

How can I do such cool things dear Cola readers ? Because it's GNU/Linux!

Cheers
-- 
              Kind Regards from Terry 
    My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2   
         New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/          
 ** Linux Registration Number: 103931,  http://counter.li.org **

Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
 and this is what they wrote:

> Milo T. wrote in <1n5egoqagt0q8$.1u4etbvakyvam$@fanatastical.malaprop.net> at
> December 11, 2003 11:23 am
>
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:31:40 +1100, Terry wrote:
>> 
>>> Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
>>>  and this is what they wrote:
>>> 
>>> [...]
>>> 
>>>> So, here is the abstract of my PhD thesis:
>>>>
>>>> \begin{document}
>>>> \title{New Method for {\it de Novo} 3D Structure Design}
>>>> \date{PhD thesis, March 1995.}
>>>> \section*{Abstract}
>>>>
>>>> An automatic, interactive computer system for \textsl{de novo} structure
>>>> based molecular design is currently under development in the University of
>>>> Leeds.
>>> 
>>> Nice, another LaTeX user!
>>> 
>>> Readers will note this is the actual saved file for Ians PhD thesis,
>>> and it's in perfectly readable Accii text. Ian will *always* be able to
>>> access his Phd.
>> 
>> One has to wonder why he didn't post it without the extraneous markup,
>> however.
>> 
> It was much quicker to cut & paste this way: a less command, 1 drag with
> left mouse button, then a click with the middle button. I did not bother
> removing the markup, it is readable as is. In fact, the markup provides
> extra semantic information.

Of course, it's perfectly readable this way, because the markup is in
ASCII, and not a MICROS~1 binary, ASCII cludge.

-- 
              Kind Regards from Terry 
    My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2   
         New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/          
 ** Linux Registration Number: 103931,  http://counter.li.org **

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:07:15 +1100, Terry wrote:

> Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
>  and this is what they wrote:
> 
>> Milo T. wrote in <1n5egoqagt0q8$.1u4etbvakyvam$@fanatastical.malaprop.net> at
>> December 11, 2003 11:23 am
>>
>>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:31:40 +1100, Terry wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
>>>>  and this is what they wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> [...]
>>>> 
>>>>> So, here is the abstract of my PhD thesis:
>>>>>
>>>>> \begin{document}
>>>>> \title{New Method for {\it de Novo} 3D Structure Design}
>>>>> \date{PhD thesis, March 1995.}
>>>>> \section*{Abstract}
>>>>>
>>>>> An automatic, interactive computer system for \textsl{de novo} structure
>>>>> based molecular design is currently under development in the University of
>>>>> Leeds.
>>>> 
>>>> Nice, another LaTeX user!
>>>> 
>>>> Readers will note this is the actual saved file for Ians PhD thesis,
>>>> and it's in perfectly readable Accii text. Ian will *always* be able to
>>>> access his Phd.
>>> 
>>> One has to wonder why he didn't post it without the extraneous markup,
>>> however.
>>> 
>> It was much quicker to cut & paste this way: a less command, 1 drag with
>> left mouse button, then a click with the middle button. I did not bother
>> removing the markup, it is readable as is. In fact, the markup provides
>> extra semantic information.
> 
> Of course, it's perfectly readable this way, because the markup is in
> ASCII, and not a MICROS~1 binary, ASCII cludge.

Terry, Unicode is not a "Microsoft binary, ASCII cludge", no matter how
much you don't understand it.
-- 
People in the killfile (and whose posts I won't read) as of 12/11/2003
11:53:45 PM:
Peter Kohlmann, T.Max Devlin.

In article <ulsetv4v24fsg98le44aktc2qollltmfon@4ax.com>,
 Linux Sucks <linux@sucks.sucks> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:30:35 GMT, Matt Costanza
> <mcostanza@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> >bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
> >
> >> In article <pan.2003.12.10.04.42.16.313115@nowhere.com> 
> >> "KRF" <krf@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:34:41 +0000, bogu wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Stupid Linux advocates, still think that linux is secure and cannot be
> >>>>hacked.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>ROFLMAO!!!
> >>>>
> >>>If Linux and Unix disappear, then you are stuck with a machine that will
> >>>do nothing but run MS Office and play games since most of the Internet
> >>>runs on either one of those OS's. 
> >>>
> >> 
> >> 
> >> You fuckin' idiot.
> >> 
> >> Windows computers have great servers and workstations.
> >
> >If that is the case, why does every ISP on the planet use a Linux server 
> >for hosting email or why is Apache used instead of a Microsoft web 
> >server product?
> >
> 
> 
> Price, those are cheap bastards, that's why.
> 

Didn't Ben Franklin say something like and to paraphrase,

 "long after the sweet victory of low price comes the bitterness of poor 
quality."

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while expecting that he will get nothing in return!"

Macintosh for productivity. Linux for servers. Palm/Visor for mobility. Windows to feed the Black Hole in your IT budget

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:54:08 GMT,
 Milo T. <fantastical@malaprop.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:07:15 +1100, Terry wrote:
>
>> Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
>>  and this is what they wrote:
>> 
>>> Milo T. wrote in <1n5egoqagt0q8$.1u4etbvakyvam$@fanatastical.malaprop.net> at
>>> December 11, 2003 11:23 am
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:31:40 +1100, Terry wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
>>>>>  and this is what they wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, here is the abstract of my PhD thesis:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> \begin{document}
>>>>>> \title{New Method for {\it de Novo} 3D Structure Design}
>>>>>> \date{PhD thesis, March 1995.}
>>>>>> \section*{Abstract}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An automatic, interactive computer system for \textsl{de novo} structure
>>>>>> based molecular design is currently under development in the University of
>>>>>> Leeds.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nice, another LaTeX user!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Readers will note this is the actual saved file for Ians PhD thesis,
>>>>> and it's in perfectly readable Accii text. Ian will *always* be able to
>>>>> access his Phd.
>>>> 
>>>> One has to wonder why he didn't post it without the extraneous markup,
>>>> however.
>>>> 
>>> It was much quicker to cut & paste this way: a less command, 1 drag with
>>> left mouse button, then a click with the middle button. I did not bother
>>> removing the markup, it is readable as is. In fact, the markup provides
>>> extra semantic information.
>> 
>> Of course, it's perfectly readable this way, because the markup is in
>> ASCII, and not a MICROS~1 binary, ASCII cludge.
>
> Terry, Unicode is not a "Microsoft binary, ASCII cludge", no matter how
> much you don't understand it.


He didn't claim it was, he was no doubt referring to the crap format of
..doc files excreted by MS-Word.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/2XvXd90bcYOAWPYRAtvmAJ9tx5K12aeoAcX0q+f+gOLztl/ibwCeNW+Y
mHSoE062ja2SxrEw2rBlc9U=
=PT6C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If at first you don't succeed, get a job with Microsoft.
	-- Gareth Barnard

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:27:03 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:54:08 GMT,
>  Milo T. <fantastical@malaprop.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:07:15 +1100, Terry wrote:
>>
>>> Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
>>>  and this is what they wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Milo T. wrote in <1n5egoqagt0q8$.1u4etbvakyvam$@fanatastical.malaprop.net> at
>>>> December 11, 2003 11:23 am
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:31:40 +1100, Terry wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
>>>>>>  and this is what they wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So, here is the abstract of my PhD thesis:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> \begin{document}
>>>>>>> \title{New Method for {\it de Novo} 3D Structure Design}
>>>>>>> \date{PhD thesis, March 1995.}
>>>>>>> \section*{Abstract}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An automatic, interactive computer system for \textsl{de novo} structure
>>>>>>> based molecular design is currently under development in the University of
>>>>>>> Leeds.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Nice, another LaTeX user!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Readers will note this is the actual saved file for Ians PhD thesis,
>>>>>> and it's in perfectly readable Accii text. Ian will *always* be able to
>>>>>> access his Phd.
>>>>> 
>>>>> One has to wonder why he didn't post it without the extraneous markup,
>>>>> however.
>>>>> 
>>>> It was much quicker to cut & paste this way: a less command, 1 drag with
>>>> left mouse button, then a click with the middle button. I did not bother
>>>> removing the markup, it is readable as is. In fact, the markup provides
>>>> extra semantic information.
>>> 
>>> Of course, it's perfectly readable this way, because the markup is in
>>> ASCII, and not a MICROS~1 binary, ASCII cludge.
>>
>> Terry, Unicode is not a "Microsoft binary, ASCII cludge", no matter how
>> much you don't understand it.
> 
> 
> He didn't claim it was, he was no doubt referring to the crap format of
> .doc files excreted by MS-Word.

I'm referring to his previous diatribe on said topic, where he proved to
not understand what Unicode was. At all. Which would be permissible say...
oh, 5 or 6 years ago. But not today. Heck, even Linux supports it these
days.
-- 
People in the killfile (and whose posts I won't read) as of 12/12/2003
1:38:29 AM:
Peter Kohlmann, T.Max Devlin.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:32:47 GMT, bogus@invalid.tld wrote:

>In article <2fldtvoivru3po71fvk4vvj3ai7iqmqnuk@4ax.com> 
>Noel <no.thanks@I.dont.want.your.spam> wrote:
>
>>>People in the killfile (and whose posts I won't read) as of 12/9/2003
>>>11:19:56 PM:
>>>Peter Kohlmann, T.Max Devlin.
>>
>>Who gives a shit?
>
>Looks like you do.
>You read it and then started bitching about it.
>

Nah, looks like the specialist in bitching around here is you, little
boy.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:12:04 +0000 (UTC),
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:


>>Shut the fuck up, bitch.
>>
>>Bend over again.
>
>Apparantly, this is what using Windows does to people.

Nope, it is what using Windows on your mom's computer does to people.

Jim Richardson threw some tea leaves on the floor
 and this is what they wrote:

>> Terry, Unicode is not a "Microsoft binary, ASCII cludge", no matter how
>> much you don't understand it.
>
>
> He didn't claim it was, he was no doubt referring to the crap format of
> .doc files excreted by MS-Word.

Absolutely!

I don't give a hoot whether it's ASCII, UNICODE or BAUDOT, Word files
are a non standard format designed to lock in customers.

-- 
              Kind Regards from Terry 
    My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2   
         New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/          
 ** Linux Registration Number: 103931,  http://counter.li.org **

Milo T. wrote:

>> Of course, it's perfectly readable this way, because the markup is in
>> ASCII, and not a MICROS~1 binary, ASCII cludge.

Actually, once you get used to LaTeX code, you don't notice the markup,
but only what it's supposed to look like.

> Terry, Unicode is not a "Microsoft binary, ASCII cludge", no matter
> how much you don't understand it.

Look at him shuffle!  Now he tries to bring Unicode into the discussion,
when the thread was currently about the difference between plain ASCII
LaTeX files and proprietary binary .doc files.  Are you intentionally
this dishonest?

-- 
PeKaJe

Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy.

Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Jim Polaski mumbled this incantation:

> Didn't Ben Franklin say something like and to paraphrase,
> 
>  "long after the sweet victory of low price comes the bitterness of poor 
> quality."

Luckily, that doesn't apply to certain softwares.

-- 
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!

So anyway, it was like, 13:47 CET Dec 12 2003, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
Peter Jensen was all like, "Dude,

> Actually, once you get used to LaTeX code, you don't notice the
> markup, but only what it's supposed to look like.

"You get used to it. I, I don't even see the code. All I see is
blonde, brunette, redhead. Hey, you eh, want a drink?"

-- 
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.      Perth ---> *
 15:08:18 up 3 days, 20:22,  8 users,  load average: 2.16, 2.22, 2.25
$ cat /dev/bollocks                      Registered Linux user #261729
exploit enterprise portals

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:03:42 GMT, Darrin Edwards wrote:
> In article <s51ma1-6je.ln1@gronk.porter.net>, Terry wrote:
>> Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
>>  and this is what they wrote:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>> So, here is the abstract of my PhD thesis:
>>>
>>> \begin{document}
>>> \title{New Method for {\it de Novo} 3D Structure Design}
>>> \date{PhD thesis, March 1995.}
>>> \section*{Abstract}
>>>
>>> An automatic, interactive computer system for \textsl{de novo} structure
>>> based molecular design is currently under development in the University of
>>> Leeds.
>> 
>> Nice, another LaTeX user!
>
> And here; in fact, I also used latex to make the slides for my defense
> (as I do for conference presentations), using the prosper class
> (http://prosper.sourceforge.net).

I used just plain TeX to make a cheatsheet (which was allowed, maximum one
page) for my Set Theory & Algebra exam.  I fit the entire course's notes
on one page.

TeX is just plain good.

-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
 8:35AM  up 21 days, 10:46, 1 user, load averages: 0.08, 0.04, 0.01

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:07:15 +1100, Terry wrote:
>> It was much quicker to cut & paste this way: a less command, 1 drag with
>> left mouse button, then a click with the middle button. I did not bother
>> removing the markup, it is readable as is. In fact, the markup provides
>> extra semantic information.
>
> Of course, it's perfectly readable this way, because the markup is in
> ASCII, and not a MICROS~1 binary, ASCII cludge.

Terry, Unicode isn't a Microsoft invention.  It's an internation standard
way of encoding MBCS (multi-byte character sets).  You'll always run into
problems converting from Unicode to UTF-8 or UTF-7.  Soemthing's gotta give.

-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
 8:35AM  up 21 days, 10:46, 1 user, load averages: 0.08, 0.04, 0.01

Johan Lindquist wrote:
> So anyway, it was like, 13:47 CET Dec 12 2003, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Peter Jensen was all like, "Dude,
> 
> 
>>Actually, once you get used to LaTeX code, you don't notice the
>>markup, but only what it's supposed to look like.
> 
> 
> "You get used to it. I, I don't even see the code. All I see is
> blonde, brunette, redhead. Hey, you eh, want a drink?"

"Another Tuborg, please!!!"

(this quote really requires previous exposure to "After the Break" or 
"Commercial Breakdown")

-- 
the Entity Formerly Known As Jazz

"What luck for the rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:40:00 GMT,
 Milo T. <fantastical@malaprop.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:27:03 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:54:08 GMT,
>>  Milo T. <fantastical@malaprop.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:07:15 +1100, Terry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
>>>>  and this is what they wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Milo T. wrote in <1n5egoqagt0q8$.1u4etbvakyvam$@fanatastical.malaprop.net> at
>>>>> December 11, 2003 11:23 am
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:31:40 +1100, Terry wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
>>>>>>>  and this is what they wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So, here is the abstract of my PhD thesis:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> \begin{document}
>>>>>>>> \title{New Method for {\it de Novo} 3D Structure Design}
>>>>>>>> \date{PhD thesis, March 1995.}
>>>>>>>> \section*{Abstract}
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An automatic, interactive computer system for \textsl{de novo}
>>>>>>>> structure based molecular design is currently under development
>>>>>>>> in the University of Leeds.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Nice, another LaTeX user!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Readers will note this is the actual saved file for Ians PhD
>>>>>>> thesis, and it's in perfectly readable Accii text. Ian will
>>>>>>> *always* be able to access his Phd.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> One has to wonder why he didn't post it without the extraneous
>>>>>> markup, however.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> It was much quicker to cut & paste this way: a less command, 1
>>>>> drag with left mouse button, then a click with the middle button.
>>>>> I did not bother removing the markup, it is readable as is. In
>>>>> fact, the markup provides extra semantic information.
>>>> 
>>>> Of course, it's perfectly readable this way, because the markup is
>>>> in ASCII, and not a MICROS~1 binary, ASCII cludge.
>>>
>>> Terry, Unicode is not a "Microsoft binary, ASCII cludge", no matter
>>> how much you don't understand it.
>> 
>> 
>> He didn't claim it was, he was no doubt referring to the crap format
>> of .doc files excreted by MS-Word.
>
> I'm referring to his previous diatribe on said topic, where he proved
> to not understand what Unicode was. At all. Which would be permissible
> say...  oh, 5 or 6 years ago. But not today. Heck, even Linux supports
> it these days.


I see, and you assume that he hasn't learned more now? 

Why? 


Seems to me, you just wanted to jump it with a gratuitous insult. 

The fact remains, Terry wasn't talking about Unicode, but about the crap
format of .doc files excreted by MS-Word.

 




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/2hLNd90bcYOAWPYRAkBbAJ9kbd/pt/9ngcj/nSjBNHKjoezREACeNy6m
nPp/VHByKYY63B3Go8rFezQ=
=B4oU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Only wimps use tape backup: _real_ men just upload their important stuff
 on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it. 
		-- Linus Torvalds

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 15:10:01 +0100,
 Johan Lindquist <spam@smilfinken.net> wrote:
> So anyway, it was like, 13:47 CET Dec 12 2003, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Peter Jensen was all like, "Dude,
>
>> Actually, once you get used to LaTeX code, you don't notice the
>> markup, but only what it's supposed to look like.
>
> "You get used to it. I, I don't even see the code. All I see is
> blonde, brunette, redhead. Hey, you eh, want a drink?"
>

Funny you should mention this, I keep an xterm open, with logfiles from
an important server, tailing through, I glance at it from time to time,
just in case. I got the same feeling as above, when I was looking at it
and realized we'd been /. in a minor way (not, to be honest, from /.
itself, but a different source, and the server handled the slight
increase in traffic fine, just scanning the access.log for apache, I saw
all the referrer info.) 

(The Matrix, the original, not one of the poor grade sequels, is still
one of the best movies made) 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/2hPAd90bcYOAWPYRAggMAJ932rfCtQPOLlJX5+iL2Tyf3NJaXACfQ+4y
G1WfniArFNIRN/BxKqUL8Hs=
=0t8k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
	-- Lazarus Long

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:36:25 GMT,
 General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:03:42 GMT, Darrin Edwards wrote:
>> In article <s51ma1-6je.ln1@gronk.porter.net>, Terry wrote:
>>> Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
>>>  and this is what they wrote:
>>> 
>>> [...]
>>> 
>>>> So, here is the abstract of my PhD thesis:
>>>>
>>>> \begin{document}
>>>> \title{New Method for {\it de Novo} 3D Structure Design}
>>>> \date{PhD thesis, March 1995.}
>>>> \section*{Abstract}
>>>>
>>>> An automatic, interactive computer system for \textsl{de novo} structure
>>>> based molecular design is currently under development in the University of
>>>> Leeds.
>>> 
>>> Nice, another LaTeX user!
>>
>> And here; in fact, I also used latex to make the slides for my defense
>> (as I do for conference presentations), using the prosper class
>> (http://prosper.sourceforge.net).
>
> I used just plain TeX to make a cheatsheet (which was allowed, maximum one
> page) for my Set Theory & Algebra exam.  I fit the entire course's notes
> on one page.
>
> TeX is just plain good.
>

I did a similar thing with postscript once. We had a piece of paper,
with two or three areas we couldn't write in, but the rest of the paper,
could be used for notes, so I had that thing covered in notes, margins,
back (of course) but nowhere, crossing into the forbidden zone. All in a
4pt font. Took a fair bit of time to set up. Don't know if I could have
done it with TeX or LaTeX. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/2hRyd90bcYOAWPYRAuQ2AKCRGFmQ52DL06/aqBHHneK2TWHS4wCcC1/R
UlCgq2mYy2zZYNfL4auVyHA=
=71UZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
They may call it 'ant and roach spray' but it sure does a
 number on birds if you spray them with it long enough.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:38:23 GMT,
 General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:07:15 +1100, Terry wrote:
>>> It was much quicker to cut & paste this way: a less command, 1 drag with
>>> left mouse button, then a click with the middle button. I did not bother
>>> removing the markup, it is readable as is. In fact, the markup provides
>>> extra semantic information.
>>
>> Of course, it's perfectly readable this way, because the markup is in
>> ASCII, and not a MICROS~1 binary, ASCII cludge.
>
> Terry, Unicode isn't a Microsoft invention.  It's an internation standard
> way of encoding MBCS (multi-byte character sets).  You'll always run into
> problems converting from Unicode to UTF-8 or UTF-7.  Soemthing's gotta give.
>


Terry wasn't talking about unicode, but about the crappy .doc format
MS-Word "saves" as. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/2hScd90bcYOAWPYRAgmLAJwLr9DOBevq/7/y7aTec7TRXySP4QCeMQGc
B3esscH1fDpLH8DaiF1wNmQ=
=f7q0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates.

the Entity Formerly Known As Jazz wrote:

>> "You get used to it. I, I don't even see the code. All I see is
>> blonde, brunette, redhead. Hey, you eh, want a drink?"
> 
> "Another Tuborg, please!!!"

I believe it's "One more Tuborg ... please!"

> (this quote really requires previous exposure to "After the Break" or
> "Commercial Breakdown")

Or for those without that exposure, the Internet provides the answer:
http://aiges.csd.auth.gr/Karoulis/videos/Tuborg.mpg :-)

On a side note, Tuborg really isn't that good a beer.  It's mostly
pilsner beer, while I prefer darker ales and stouts.  Don't get me
started on that topic, though ...

-- 
PeKaJe

"If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught
and shot now." -- Zaphod. 

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:18:52 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:38:23 GMT,
>  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:07:15 +1100, Terry wrote:
>>>> It was much quicker to cut & paste this way: a less command, 1 drag with
>>>> left mouse button, then a click with the middle button. I did not bother
>>>> removing the markup, it is readable as is. In fact, the markup provides
>>>> extra semantic information.
>>>
>>> Of course, it's perfectly readable this way, because the markup is in
>>> ASCII, and not a MICROS~1 binary, ASCII cludge.
>>
>> Terry, Unicode isn't a Microsoft invention.  It's an internation standard
>> way of encoding MBCS (multi-byte character sets).  You'll always run into
>> problems converting from Unicode to UTF-8 or UTF-7.  Soemthing's gotta give.
>>
>
>
> Terry wasn't talking about unicode, but about the crappy .doc format
> MS-Word "saves" as. 

Why is "saves" in quotation marks?

-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
 2:20PM  up 21 days, 16:31, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
<generalpf@braids.ertw.com>
 wrote
on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:38:23 GMT
<slrnbtjklq.20gg.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:07:15 +1100, Terry wrote:
>>> It was much quicker to cut & paste this way: a less command, 1 drag with
>>> left mouse button, then a click with the middle button. I did not bother
>>> removing the markup, it is readable as is. In fact, the markup provides
>>> extra semantic information.
>>
>> Of course, it's perfectly readable this way, because the markup is in
>> ASCII, and not a MICROS~1 binary, ASCII cludge.
>
> Terry, Unicode isn't a Microsoft invention.  It's an internation standard
> way of encoding MBCS (multi-byte character sets).  You'll always run into
> problems converting from Unicode to UTF-8 or UTF-7.  Soemthing's gotta give.
>

Erm...UTF-8 *encodes* Unicode, and should work for all
Unicode characters.  One might have problems converting
arbitrary bytestreams using UTF-8 *into* Unicode, but
that's a different issue.

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ian Amuhton
<abuse@msn.com>
 wrote
on Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:40:23 GMT
<b_1Cb.12087$kr2.1792@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>:
> Terry wrote in <s51ma1-6je.ln1@gronk.porter.net> at December 11, 2003 06:31 am
>
>> Ian Amuhton threw some tea leaves on the floor
>>  and this is what they wrote:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>> So, here is the abstract of my PhD thesis:
>>>
>>> \begin{document}
>>> \title{New Method for {\it de Novo} 3D Structure Design}
>>> \date{PhD thesis, March 1995.}
>>> \section*{Abstract}
>>>
>>> An automatic, interactive computer system for \textsl{de novo} structure
>>> based molecular design is currently under development in the University of
>>> Leeds.
>> 
>> Nice, another LaTeX user!
>> 
> Of course. It is the de facto standard in scientific publishing. 
> For example, check out the Elsevier Author Guide (on the right-hand
> menu from the URL): http://authors.elsevier.com/
>
> They talk about two formats for accepting publications:
> 1. Text files - here they say:
> "We can accept most word-processing formats 
> [snip]
> Most formatting codes are removed or replaced when we process your article so
> there is no need for you to use excessive layout styling."
>
> 2. LaTeX files - here they say:
> "Preparing typeset articles with LaTeX
> For those authors who use LaTeX to write their articles, we have developed the
> Elsevier LaTeX package.
> ..."
>
> So, basically if you use LaTeX, you already do the typesetting, they will just
> plug in your article without much extra work. On the other hand any other
> format is considered just raw text and they will do the formatting in LaTeX.
>
>> Readers will note this is the actual saved file for Ians PhD thesis,
>> and it's in perfectly readable Accii text. Ian will *always* be able to
>> access his Phd.
>> 
> In fact, I wrote that on SGI IRIX, and now I can work with it on Linux
> without any conversion and it produces _identical_ output. I could also
> use it on MS Windows or Mac - although I do not intend to :-)
>

The bit that bothers me about LaTeX is: how come nobody's
come up with text/latex or text/tex as a Content-Type:
field value?

Surely someone's given some thought to this issue?!  A
sophisticated typesetting newsreader might be able to make
some sense out of it that way, although there are issues
regarding local setup.

(Of course with MathML this might not be as much of an issue.
But LaTeX seems to me to be a bit cleaner, if older.)

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:00:26 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
><generalpf@braids.ertw.com>
>  wrote
> on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:38:23 GMT
><slrnbtjklq.20gg.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>:
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:07:15 +1100, Terry wrote:
>>>> It was much quicker to cut & paste this way: a less command, 1 drag with
>>>> left mouse button, then a click with the middle button. I did not bother
>>>> removing the markup, it is readable as is. In fact, the markup provides
>>>> extra semantic information.
>>>
>>> Of course, it's perfectly readable this way, because the markup is in
>>> ASCII, and not a MICROS~1 binary, ASCII cludge.
>>
>> Terry, Unicode isn't a Microsoft invention.  It's an internation standard
>> way of encoding MBCS (multi-byte character sets).  You'll always run into
>> problems converting from Unicode to UTF-8 or UTF-7.  Soemthing's gotta give.
>>
>
> Erm...UTF-8 *encodes* Unicode, and should work for all
> Unicode characters.  One might have problems converting
> arbitrary bytestreams using UTF-8 *into* Unicode, but
> that's a different issue.

I think you have it backwards.  UTF-8 is 8 bits wide, and Unicode characters
are of arbitrary length even within the same string.  There's no problem
going from UTF-8 to Unicode.  Going to other way is like cramming a float
into an int.

-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
 3:10PM  up 21 days, 17:21, 1 user, load averages: 0.10, 0.03, 0.01

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
> <generalpf@braids.ertw.com>
>  wrote
> on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:38:23 GMT
> <slrnbtjklq.20gg.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>:
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:07:15 +1100, Terry wrote:
>>>> It was much quicker to cut & paste this way: a less command, 1 drag
>>>> with left mouse button, then a click with the middle button. I did not
>>>> bother removing the markup, it is readable as is. In fact, the markup
>>>> provides extra semantic information.
>>>
>>> Of course, it's perfectly readable this way, because the markup is in
>>> ASCII, and not a MICROS~1 binary, ASCII cludge.
>>
>> Terry, Unicode isn't a Microsoft invention.  It's an internation standard
>> way of encoding MBCS (multi-byte character sets).  You'll always run into
>> problems converting from Unicode to UTF-8 or UTF-7.  Soemthing's gotta
>> give.
>>
> 
> Erm...UTF-8 *encodes* Unicode, and should work for all
> Unicode characters.  One might have problems converting
> arbitrary bytestreams using UTF-8 *into* Unicode, but
> that's a different issue.
> 
UTF-8 is not unicode. There are many different 8 bit character sets, UTF-8
(AFAIK) is an attempt to standardize. Unicode is multiple bytes wide.

>>>>> "General" == General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> writes:

    General> I used just plain TeX to make a cheatsheet (which was
    General> allowed, maximum one page) for my Set Theory & Algebra
    General> exam.  I fit the entire course's notes on one page.

I did something similar for the  exam of a statistics course under the
same  rule (although we  use A4-size,  not letter-size).   Oh.  That's
already 8 years ago.  Time flies.


    General> TeX is just plain good.

Yeah!  I've also done some home-brewed name cards in plain TeX.


-- 
Lee Sau Dan                     +Z05biGVm-(Big5)                    ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ) 

E-mail: danlee@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee

Johan Lindquist threw some tea leaves on the floor
 and this is what they wrote:

> So anyway, it was like, 13:47 CET Dec 12 2003, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Peter Jensen was all like, "Dude,
>
>> Actually, once you get used to LaTeX code, you don't notice the
>> markup, but only what it's supposed to look like.
>
> "You get used to it. I, I don't even see the code. All I see is
> blonde, brunette, redhead. Hey, you eh, want a drink?"

Ever ask yourself " why didn't I take the *blue* pill!" ?



-- 
              Kind Regards from Terry 
    My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2   
         New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/          
 ** Linux Registration Number: 103931,  http://counter.li.org **

<restart@your.computer> wrote in message
news:7etetvo6te3h8ujcctea7vot02vpdsd9ab@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:43:31 GMT, zurg <zurg@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>
> ><bullshit snipped>
>
> You are an idiot.
>

to use your own argument, you are gay, you are an idiot, shut the fuck up
bitch and bend over, suck my cock like the whore you are etc etc etc

the sooner you shoot yourself in the face the better for the rest of the
world. you're obviously the sort of person who gets their kicks from mugging
senior citizens. faggot. cunt. whore. bitch. etc

General Protection Fault wrote:

>> Terry wasn't talking about unicode, but about the crappy .doc format
>> MS-Word "saves" as. 
> 
> Why is "saves" in quotation marks?

Because documents "saved" in that format are rarely safe.  Being a
binary format, it has a relatively low tolerance for errors, and sooner
or later the program that can read them will no longer exist.  The
former problem is caused by incompetence, but the latter is a general
problem in the closed source world.  No wonder governments around the
world are mandating open source and formats.  It'd be a real pity if all
our history is lost due to proprietary standards ...

-- 
PeKaJe

Q: What do Windows NT and frozen pizza have in common?
A: They're both half baked. 

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
<generalpf@braids.ertw.com>
 wrote
on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 20:22:12 GMT
<slrnbtk8qf.21ip.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:18:52 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:38:23 GMT,
>>  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:07:15 +1100, Terry wrote:
>>>>> It was much quicker to cut & paste this way: a less command, 1 drag with
>>>>> left mouse button, then a click with the middle button. I did not bother
>>>>> removing the markup, it is readable as is. In fact, the markup provides
>>>>> extra semantic information.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, it's perfectly readable this way, because the markup is in
>>>> ASCII, and not a MICROS~1 binary, ASCII cludge.
>>>
>>> Terry, Unicode isn't a Microsoft invention.  It's an internation standard
>>> way of encoding MBCS (multi-byte character sets).  You'll always run into
>>> problems converting from Unicode to UTF-8 or UTF-7.  Soemthing's gotta give.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Terry wasn't talking about unicode, but about the crappy .doc format
>> MS-Word "saves" as. 
>
> Why is "saves" in quotation marks?
>

There are a few documented problems with Word's saving
of files.  For instance, at least one file has old text in
it even after the user saved, wiped it (it's not precisely
clear to me how; did the user select and delete all text,
hit New Document, or what?), put some new text in it,
and saved it again somewhere else.

It's led to some embarrassing scenarios, AIUI, mostly for
contractors using MS Word.

(Note that I'm referring to actual text.  If one selects
everything and does a DELETE, one would expect the
templates to stick around; if embarrassing text is in
those that's the user's fault. :-) )

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:00:09 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
> <generalpf@braids.ertw.com>
>  wrote
> on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 20:22:12 GMT
> <slrnbtk8qf.21ip.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>:
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:18:52 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:38:23 GMT,
>>>  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:07:15 +1100, Terry wrote:
>>>>>> It was much quicker to cut & paste this way: a less command, 1 drag with
>>>>>> left mouse button, then a click with the middle button. I did not bother
>>>>>> removing the markup, it is readable as is. In fact, the markup provides
>>>>>> extra semantic information.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, it's perfectly readable this way, because the markup is in
>>>>> ASCII, and not a MICROS~1 binary, ASCII cludge.
>>>>
>>>> Terry, Unicode isn't a Microsoft invention.  It's an internation standard
>>>> way of encoding MBCS (multi-byte character sets).  You'll always run into
>>>> problems converting from Unicode to UTF-8 or UTF-7.  Soemthing's gotta give.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Terry wasn't talking about unicode, but about the crappy .doc format
>>> MS-Word "saves" as. 
>>
>> Why is "saves" in quotation marks?
>>
> 
> There are a few documented problems with Word's saving
> of files.  For instance, at least one file has old text in
> it even after the user saved, wiped it (it's not precisely
> clear to me how; did the user select and delete all text,
> hit New Document, or what?), put some new text in it,
> and saved it again somewhere else.
> 
> It's led to some embarrassing scenarios, AIUI, mostly for
> contractors using MS Word.
> 
> (Note that I'm referring to actual text.  If one selects
> everything and does a DELETE, one would expect the
> templates to stick around; if embarrassing text is in
> those that's the user's fault. :-) )

Please read up on piece table algorithms. Then implement one, using
granular page sizes of, oh, anywhere from 512 bytes to 64kb. Then insert
and delete some text from it. Then look at it and be amazed.
-- 
People in the killfile (and whose posts I won't read) as of 12/12/2003
8:38:10 PM:
Peter Kohlmann, T.Max Devlin.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, mlw
<mlw@nospam.no>
 wrote
on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:24:40 GMT
<smqCb.376264$ao4.1256168@attbi_s51>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
>> <generalpf@braids.ertw.com>
>>  wrote
>> on Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:38:23 GMT
>> <slrnbtjklq.20gg.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>:
>>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:07:15 +1100, Terry wrote:
>>>>> It was much quicker to cut & paste this way: a less command, 1 drag
>>>>> with left mouse button, then a click with the middle button. I did not
>>>>> bother removing the markup, it is readable as is. In fact, the markup
>>>>> provides extra semantic information.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, it's perfectly readable this way, because the markup is in
>>>> ASCII, and not a MICROS~1 binary, ASCII cludge.
>>>
>>> Terry, Unicode isn't a Microsoft invention.  It's an internation standard
>>> way of encoding MBCS (multi-byte character sets).  You'll always run into
>>> problems converting from Unicode to UTF-8 or UTF-7.  Soemthing's gotta
>>> give.
>>>
>> 
>> Erm...UTF-8 *encodes* Unicode, and should work for all
>> Unicode characters.  One might have problems converting
>> arbitrary bytestreams using UTF-8 *into* Unicode, but
>> that's a different issue.
>> 
> UTF-8 is not unicode. There are many different 8 bit character sets, UTF-8
> (AFAIK) is an attempt to standardize. Unicode is multiple bytes wide.
>

Exactly.  As I understand it, UTF-8 is an attempt at specifying
how one can expand a Unicode (or, for that matter, any 32-bit (?)
value) character into a series of 8-bit bytes, and then reverse
the process to get the character back from those bytes.

Since it is currently not possible to specify a mapping between
characters and bytes such that all possible bytestreams map to
valid charstreams (and vice versa), one occasionally runs into
situations where a bytestream cannot be properly converted.

Java in particular makes a clear distinction between chars and bytes.

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In article <cj9jtv0t43cbp4jrcgcqcgs8q78s19oe65@4ax.com> 
Noel <no.thanks@I.dont.want.your.spam> wrote:

> little boy.

We are not interested in reading your sexual fantasies about little
boys, faggot.

In article <br8274$o3q$3@hood.uits.indiana.edu> 
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:


>Apparantly, this is what using Windows does to people.


>X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test62 (21 February 1998)

Another Linux/UNIX retard stuck in the past who thinks that he is
superior to others.

Shut the fuck up, bitch.

In article <pj9jtv4smu9op0mdnu19vld5o3q9dv4mb9@4ax.com> 
Noel <no.thanks@I.dont.want.your.spam> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:12:04 +0000 (UTC),
>glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>
>>>Shut the fuck up, bitch.
>>>
>>>Bend over again.
>>
>>Apparantly, this is what using Windows does to people.
>
>Nope, it is what using Windows on your mom's computer does to people.
>

>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 Italiano

You obviously speak from experience, using your whore mom's computer,
you lazy italian cunt.

In article <brdhll$rl0$1@hercules.btinternet.com> 
"joe" <crunk@crunk.crunk.com> wrote:

>to use your own argument

What's the matter, bitch?
Cannot come up with your own?

Are you sure that your other name is not chrisv?

Stupid Linux retarded jackass, so stupid that you are using Outlook
Express to troll.

Do the world a favor, buy a gun, aim to your own head and pull the
trigger.
Nobody will miss you, except your step father who molested you when you
were young.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:06:10 GMT, no@spam.spam wrote:

>>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 Italiano
>
>You obviously speak from experience, using your whore mom's computer,
>you lazy italian cunt.

Hiding behind a computer such things are easy to say.  I doubt you
would be so brave if you didn't have mommy and anonymity to hide
behind.  Oh, and I may be using an italian version of agent, but that
does not mean I am italian, or that italian is my first language.  But
let's just say I am for a moment.  Can you, you ill-educated little
fucktard, speak or write a word of italian?

In article <f8eltv0r7k3am3f04hk89e1o250jdqp1r4@4ax.com>,
 <bogus@invalid.tld> wrote:
>In article <br8274$o3q$3@hood.uits.indiana.edu> 
>glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>
>>Apparantly, this is what using Windows does to people.
>
>
>>X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test62 (21 February 1998)
>
>Another Linux/UNIX retard stuck in the past who thinks that he is
>superior to others.
>
>Shut the fuck up, bitch.
>


And telnetting to it from a Mac.  And Microsoft still ain't using Windows 
to serve their web site.


-- 
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong."
 -- Henry Louis Mencken 

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:24:40 GMT, mlw <mlw@nospam.no> wrote:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

>> Erm...UTF-8 *encodes* Unicode, and should work for all
>> Unicode characters.

> UTF-8 is not unicode. 

<http://www.unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html#14>:

    Q: Can Unicode text be represented in more than one way?

    A: Yes, there are several possible representations of Unicode data,
    including UTF-8, UTF-16 and UTF-32. In addition, there are
    compression transformations such as the one described in the Unicode
    Technical Report #6: A Standard Compression Scheme for Unicode. [MD]


> There are many different 8 bit character sets, UTF-8 (AFAIK) is an
> attempt to standardize.

As I understand it, UTF-8 isn't another 8-bit charcter set like
ISO-8859-1.  It is a variable length encoding of Unicode and can encode
any character that UTF-16 can.

UTF-8 has several nice properties including being endian-agnostic and
tending to do what you would expect when processed by non-Unicode-aware
software.


-- 
 -| Bob Hauck
 -| To Whom You Are Speaking
 -| http://www.haucks.org/

In article <qdlltvcdmqig6divnpgmo29jerhdsqo4mr@4ax.com> 
Noel <no.thanks@I.dont.want.your.spam> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:06:10 GMT, no@spam.spam wrote:
>
>>>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 Italiano
>>
>>You obviously speak from experience, using your whore mom's computer,
>>you lazy italian cunt.
>
>Hiding behind a computer such things are easy to say.  

English is not your first language?
Or you have probably missed it when they had punctuation in the class


>I doubt you would be so brave if you didn't have mommy and anonymity to hide
>behind.  

And you are so not anonymous?
How old are you, douchebag?10?
So how well known is your Noel <no.thanks@I.dont.want.your.spam>ID that
you are hiding behind?

You stupid retarded piece of shit.


You are also trying to be brae threatening me from behind a computer, so
what you gonna do, doofus?
I can kick your ass, your likes are just stupid pussies.


>Oh, and I may be using an italian version of agent, but that
>does not mean I am italian,

Then you have pirated it?
Typical Linux fuckhead, a pirate and an ignorant jackass.

> or that italian is my first language.  

Neither English is, obviously.

>But let's just //flush

Shut the fuck up, you illiterate, society reject,  retarded piece of
shit.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:30:41 GMT, I@own.your.ass wrote:

>English is not your first language?

Well, what do you know?  You don't demonstrate that ANY language is
your first language.

>Or you have probably missed it when they had punctuation in the class

And that is the only class you attended, right?

>And you are so not anonymous?

I am not the one making the puerile remarks.

>How old are you, douchebag?10?

What has that got to do with YOUR level of immaturity.

>You stupid retarded piece of shit.

Aw, I'm really hurt.  Now fuck off.

>You are also trying to be brae threatening me from behind a computer, so
>what you gonna do, doofus?

I am not threatening you, fucktard.

>I can kick your ass, your likes are just stupid pussies.

My likes?  You pathethic little troglodyte.

>Then you have pirated it?

Talk to Forte if you suspect that.  Otherwise STFU.

>Typical Linux fuckhead, a pirate and an ignorant jackass.

Here's a cluestick for you, you clueless moron.  What platform does
Agent run on?

>Neither English is, obviously.

Coming from you that is just priceless.  

>Shut the fuck up, you illiterate, society reject,  retarded piece of
>shit.

Yeah, yeah.  Whatever.

In article <t90ntvgjoeteb8q1tr15956397qaduoak2@4ax.com> 
Noel <no.thanks@I.dont.want.your.spam> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:30:41 GMT, I@own.your.ass wrote:
>
>>English is not your first language?
>
>Well, what do you know?  You don't demonstrate that ANY language is
>your first language.
>

Oooh, I must have touched a nerve.

You must have failed school or failed your ESL courses.

>>Or you have probably missed it when they had punctuation in the class
>
>And that is the only class you attended, right?

Yawn,

If you want us not to ignore your sorry posts, then you'd better come
back with better posts, such crap is boring, just like your mom last
night.


>>And you are so not anonymous?
>
>I am not the one making the puerile remarks.
>


When you accuse someone of being anonymous, you should at least look in
the mirror, fuckhead.

>>How old are you, douchebag?10?
>
>What has that got to do with YOUR level of immaturity.
>

Oooh, touched another nerve.


>>You stupid retarded piece of shit.
>
>Aw, I'm really hurt.

Admission noted.

I bet you are.

Next time I will put some oil on it before I shove it right up your ass.

>>You are also trying to be brae threatening me from behind a computer, so
>>what you gonna do, doofus?
>
>I am not threatening you,

Then you are a chicken shit, coward gimp.

You tried playing a game and when someone called your bluff, you
chickened out, asswipe.

>>I can kick your ass, your likes are just stupid pussies.
>
>My likes? 

Yes, I sure hope that you and your likes get listed as endangered
species.

The less of your type, the better chance humanity has towards
advancement.


>>Then you have pirated it?
>
>Talk to Forte if you suspect that.  

Ohhh, I touched another nerve.


Don't push your luck, doofus, I might be convinced to so.
You think you're safe hiding behind the supernews?

Think again, shitbrick.


>Otherwise STFU.

And if don't what can you do about it, expect being the bitch that you
are?
Nothing, you will just moan like your mom.


>>Typical Linux fuckhead, a pirate and an ignorant jackass.
>
>Here's a cluestick for you, you clueless moron.  What platform does
>Agent run on?
>

That's what makes you easy to spank, you are trying to advocate against
Windows while you use it, douchebag.

I am willing to bet that you are living off your welfare checks.
No one will hire someone THIS stupid like you.

Of course a dumbass like you doesn't know that Agent runs under WINE.

You retarded cocksucking piece of shit, clueless dumbass.


>>Neither English is, obviously.
>
>Coming from you that is just priceless.  
>

It sure exposed your ignorance.

>>Shut the fuck up, you illiterate, society reject,  retarded piece of
>>shit.
>
>Yeah


Glad you agree, fuckhead.

In article <brf0hg$jld$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu> 
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

>In article <f8eltv0r7k3am3f04hk89e1o250jdqp1r4@4ax.com>,
> <bogus@invalid.tld> wrote:
>>In article <br8274$o3q$3@hood.uits.indiana.edu> 
>>glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Apparantly, this is what using Windows does to people.
>>
>>
>>>X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test62 (21 February 1998)
>>
>>Another Linux/UNIX retard stuck in the past who thinks that he is
>>superior to others.
>>
>>Shut the fuck up, bitch.
>>
>
>
>And telnetting to it from a Mac.  And Microsoft still ain't using Windows 
>to serve their web site.

They are you retarded jackass, the use akamai to cache their servers,
and akamai uses Linux and others.

Microsoft cannot control what akamai chooses.

bogus@invalid.tld wrote in <jdhntv4ihq7rf8eismqhk4e77cdjrujorv@4ax.com> at
December 13, 2003 09:11 pm

> In article <brf0hg$jld$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>
> glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> 
>>
>>And telnetting to it from a Mac.  And Microsoft still ain't using Windows
>>to serve their web site.
> 
> They are you retarded jackass, the use akamai to cache their servers,

Your lack of education and low level of intelligence shines through your foul
mouth again as usual.

> and akamai uses Linux and others.
> 
> Microsoft cannot control what akamai chooses.

But they _choose_ to outsource caching to Akamai, because their servers were
not able to handle the load without the Akamai caching. Thus, they hired a
Linux company to solve the performance problem of their windows.

<sarcasm mode>
By the time you manage to complete grade 8 (if ever!) you may understand such
"complicated" line of thoughts...
</sarcasm mode>

-- 
Windows = A 32 bit extension to a GUI shell to a 16 bit patch to an 
8 bit OS originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor and sold by a 
2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
LGX = A true 64 bit OS, running on HW from wrist-watch to mainframes.

In article <7jQCb.12924$NNW1.5329@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> 
Ian Amuhton <abuse@msn.com> wrote:

>bogus@invalid.tld wrote in <jdhntv4ihq7rf8eismqhk4e77cdjrujorv@4ax.com> at
>December 13, 2003 09:11 pm
>
>> In article <brf0hg$jld$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>
>> glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>>And telnetting to it from a Mac.  And Microsoft still ain't using Windows
>>>to serve their web site.
>> 
>> They are you retarded jackass, the use akamai to cache their servers,
>
>Your lack of education and low level of intelligence

Says someone who is forging the address abuse@msn.com?

ROFLMAO!!!

Linux losers are always stupid like this.


> shines through your foul
>mouth again as usual.

Truth hurts, bitch.

Funny, Linux drones, who are notorious for being rude, now crying
because they are getting a taste of their own medicine.


>> and akamai uses Linux and others.
>> 
>> Microsoft cannot control what akamai chooses.
>
>But they _choose_ to outsource caching to Akamai, 

News for you, dickhead.,
Akamai is the largest company in such business.

>because their servers were
>not able to handle the load without the Akamai caching. Thus, they hired a
>Linux company to solve the performance problem of their windows.


Hey moron:

1. AKAMI is not a "Linux company", they use Linux for some of their
business.
2. Microsoft was able to handle that all along, it just makes sense to
out source such crap to people who do that for living, along with other
services.


Microsoft is not in the hosting business, douche bag.
Perhaps when you grow up in about ten years you may be able to grasp
this small fact.



><sarcasm mode>
>By the time you manage to complete grade 8 (if ever!) you may understand such
>"complicated" line of thoughts...
></sarcasm mode>

Nice note to your self.

bogus@invalid.tld wrote:

> Microsoft is not in the hosting business, douche bag.
> Perhaps when you grow up in about ten years you may be able to grasp
> this small fact.

In ten years, they will be once all their software revenues dry up and 
they convert the campus to a server farm ( Redhat ) to try and cover costs.

In article <KFQCb.3293$Pg1.3029@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> 
John Bailo <ten@lnilhtrea.oliabaj> wrote:

>bogus@invalid.tld wrote:
>
>> Microsoft is not in the hosting business, douche bag.
>> Perhaps when you grow up in about ten years you may be able to grasp
>> this small fact.
>
>In ten years, they will be once all their software revenues dry up and 
>they convert the campus to a server farm ( Redhat ) to try and cover costs.
>
>

Your wet dreams won't come true.

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:48:47 -0500, "MuahMan" wrote:

> The more it gains market share the more it will be hacked. Do we ever get to
> blame the hackers for any of this or is it always the OS'es fault?

> > http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5117271.html
> >
> >
> > ROFLMAO!!!
> >
> 
> 

Exactly... anything can be hacked.

-- 
Pegasos1 Rocks! Give yourself over to the Blue side.

bogus@invalid.tld wrote in <7okntvkcads0vo7rkf7inhjvi22ti452f7@4ax.com> at
December 13, 2003 10:13 pm

> In article <7jQCb.12924$NNW1.5329@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
> Ian Amuhton <abuse@msn.com> wrote:
> 
>>bogus@invalid.tld wrote in <jdhntv4ihq7rf8eismqhk4e77cdjrujorv@4ax.com> at
>>December 13, 2003 09:11 pm
>>
>>> In article <brf0hg$jld$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>
>>> glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>> 
>>>>
>>>>And telnetting to it from a Mac.  And Microsoft still ain't using Windows
>>>>to serve their web site.
>>> 
>>> They are you retarded jackass, the use akamai to cache their servers,
>>
>>Your lack of education and low level of intelligence
> 
> Says someone who is forging the address abuse@msn.com?

And this complaint comes from "bogus@invalid.tld" ? :) 
BTW, it is not forging. Just a little trap for the spam-bots and the kids like
you who do not understand its purpose.

It is noted that you no longer argue against the statement of your low
intelligence and lack of education. As it was proved by your lack of response
to my challenge in this same thread. So, it is settled that you have less
high school grades completed than the number of my University degrees.

[skipped bitching about his trash-vocabulary]

> 
>>> and akamai uses Linux and others.
>>> 
>>> Microsoft cannot control what akamai chooses.
>>
>>But they _choose_ to outsource caching to Akamai,
> 
> News for you, dickhead.,
> Akamai is the largest company in such business.
> 
That does not invalidate the fact, that Microsoft chose them. Further, the
fact that the largest company in such business is using Linux proves that
Linux is the most suitable tool for the task. So you just admitted that you
have lost the original argument, i.e. Windows cannot handle the web serving
load as well as Linux can.

>>because their servers were
>>not able to handle the load without the Akamai caching. Thus, they hired a
>>Linux company to solve the performance problem of their windows.
> 
> 
> Hey moron:
> 
> 1. AKAMI is not a "Linux company", they use Linux for some of their
> business.

Really, "some" ? You mean, their _core_ business relies on the use of Linux.
That is what "Linux company" refers to in my statement above.

> 2. Microsoft was able to handle that all along, it just makes sense to
> out source such crap to people who do that for living, along with other
> services.
> 
Bogus logic core dump. Argument does not compute.

> 
> Microsoft is not in the hosting business, douche bag.

No, they are in the OS business, promoting their virus-platform crash-ware for
_other_ corporations as a server OS suitable for hosting web pages. At the
same time they are not willing to rely on their own OS to do the same for
them. How pathetic.

> Perhaps when you grow up in about ten years you may be able to grasp
> this small fact.
> 
Typical teenager rant. Always thinking about yourself and reflecting your own
problems onto other people. My daughter has more mature logic than you.
Although it is not surprising, since she has proper education.

>><sarcasm mode>
>>By the time you manage to complete grade 8 (if ever!) you may understand
>>such "complicated" line of thoughts...
>></sarcasm mode>
> 
> Nice note to your self.

As you admitted already many times in this thread: truth hurts.
I am really sorry for you, puberty is not the best period for self esteem.
But don't worry, you'll get over it, just hang on.

-- 
Windows = A 32 bit extension to a GUI shell to a 16 bit patch to an 
8 bit OS originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor and sold by a 
2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
LGX = A true 64 bit OS, running on HW from wrist-watch to mainframes.

In article <qkSCb.13271$NNW1.10947@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Ian Amuhton <abuse@msn.com> wrote:

>bogus@invalid.tld wrote in <7okntvkcads0vo7rkf7inhjvi22ti452f7@4ax.com> at
>December 13, 2003 10:13 pm
>
>> In article <7jQCb.12924$NNW1.5329@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
>> Ian Amuhton <abuse@msn.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>bogus@invalid.tld wrote in <jdhntv4ihq7rf8eismqhk4e77cdjrujorv@4ax.com> at
>>>December 13, 2003 09:11 pm
>>>
>>>> In article <brf0hg$jld$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>
>>>> glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>>And telnetting to it from a Mac.  And Microsoft still ain't using Windows
>>>>>to serve their web site.
>>>> 
>>>> They are you retarded jackass, the use akamai to cache their servers,
>>>
>>>Your lack of education and low level of intelligence
>> 
>> Says someone who is forging the address abuse@msn.com?
>
>And this complaint comes from "bogus@invalid.tld" ? :) 

Yes, you got problems with that?
In that case you must be hating another Linux doofus that uses the same
address.

At least it is not stealing/forging a domain that I do not own.

>BTW, it is not forging. 

It is forging, show me where and when exactly you purchased the domain
name msn.com

Your stupid ISP is spam friendly that is why they let you use someone
else's domain in your headers.

>Just a little trap for the spam-bots and the kids like
>you who do not understand its purpose.
>

You are a kid and a spammer that doesn't understand how this works.
Just like any other Linux jackass you have no ethics.

><Lies of a Linux loonie school dropout delted>

>my University degrees.
>

Wet dreaming again, aren't you?

Nobody believes this bullshit of yours, no matter how you try to whine
about getting some degree, bitch.

>. Windows cannot handle the web serving
>load as well as Linux can.
>

It can, doofus, but this is going over your head as well.

Linux kiddies like your self, script kiddies, are all obsessed in
hacking Microsoft, so why would Microsoft bother?
Let them now try to hack their own OS.


>>>because their servers were
>>>not able to handle the load without the Akamai caching. Thus, they hired a
>>>Linux company to solve the performance problem of their windows.
>> 
>> 
>> Hey moron:
>> 
>> 1. AKAMI is not a "Linux company", they use Linux for some of their
>> business.
>
>Really, 

Yes really, bitch.


>> 2. Microsoft was able to handle that all along, it just makes sense to
>> out source such crap to people who do that for living, along with other
>> services.
>> 
>Bogus logic 

It seems that logic is not your biggest forte.

I am not surprised.

So are you saying that Microsoft is in the web hosting business as a
main source of income?
Yep, you are stupid, and beyond any hope.


<Linux loonie trying to be funny, boring linux joke deleted>

Yawn.


>> 
>> Microsoft is not in the hosting business, douche bag.
>
>No, they are in the OS business,

Then shut the fuck up, you just answered your own point.

Also Apple uses Akamai, does that mean that they cannot handle their own
hosting?

Going by your stupid argument Mac OSX which is a UNIX based OS cannot
handle that too.

Wow, lots of eggs on your face.


>How pathetic.


I agree, your argument is pathetic.



>Typical teenager rant.

Agreed again, you are a teenager ranting aimlessly.
Glad to see that you learned your lesson.


>I am really sorry 

I bet you are, and you should be.

Linux jackass advocates and drones are always sorry.


Glad to the one who educated you.

You got your sorry ass spanked as usual, now it is time for you grow up
and get some education, shitbrick.

In article 
<qkSCb.13271$NNW1.10947@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
 Ian Amuhton <abuse@msn.com> wrote:

> Windows = A 32 bit extension to a GUI shell to a 16 bit patch to an 
> 8 bit OS originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor and sold by a 
> 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.

Is Windows made by Apple?   Apple is the company that shut down the 
clones because they "can't stand 1 bit of competition".

> LGX = A true 64 bit OS, running on HW from wrist-watch to mainframes.

And optimized for neither!

Dan

Dan wrote:

> In article
> <qkSCb.13271$NNW1.10947@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
>  Ian Amuhton <abuse@msn.com> wrote:
> 
>> Windows = A 32 bit extension to a GUI shell to a 16 bit patch to an
>> 8 bit OS originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor and sold by a
>> 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
> 
> Is Windows made by Apple?   Apple is the company that shut down the
> clones because they "can't stand 1 bit of competition".
> 
>> LGX = A true 64 bit OS, running on HW from wrist-watch to mainframes.
> 
> And optimized for neither!
> 
> Dan

You may now explain how a 32bit OS is better optimized for a 64bit machine
than a 64bit OS. Case in point: The AMD 64bit processors
-- 
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend: and inside a dog,
it's too dark to read."                -- Groucho Marx

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 14 Dec 2003 11:10:04 -0600,
 Dan <me@here.net> wrote:
> In article 
><qkSCb.13271$NNW1.10947@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
>  Ian Amuhton <abuse@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Windows = A 32 bit extension to a GUI shell to a 16 bit patch to an 
>> 8 bit OS originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor and sold by a 
>> 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
>
> Is Windows made by Apple?   Apple is the company that shut down the 
> clones because they "can't stand 1 bit of competition".
>
>> LGX = A true 64 bit OS, running on HW from wrist-watch to mainframes.
>
> And optimized for neither!
>


False.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/3L7Rd90bcYOAWPYRAo+YAJ4hUzHfijTPXYmp1xI0Bwu3CXVzwACg4nES
Q9tNvThiLcbfr9ZSNU46jw0=
=Lwlr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If at first you don't succeed, get a job with Microsoft.
	-- Gareth Barnard

Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Dan mumbled this incantation:

>> LGX = A true 64 bit OS, running on HW from wrist-watch to mainframes.
> 
> And optimized for neither!

You have never heard of modules and feature patches for Linux, have you?
Better check out /usr/src/linux, dude.

-- 
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!

bogus@invalid.tld wrote in <s90otvof6hfu565m96jf0qmbernfo31a40@4ax.com> at
December 14, 2003 01:34 am

> In article <qkSCb.13271$NNW1.10947@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
> Ian Amuhton <abuse@msn.com> wrote:
> 
>>bogus@invalid.tld wrote in <7okntvkcads0vo7rkf7inhjvi22ti452f7@4ax.com> at
>>December 13, 2003 10:13 pm
>>
>>> In article <7jQCb.12924$NNW1.5329@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
>>> Ian Amuhton <abuse@msn.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>bogus@invalid.tld wrote in <jdhntv4ihq7rf8eismqhk4e77cdjrujorv@4ax.com> at
>>>>December 13, 2003 09:11 pm
>>>>
>>>>> In article <brf0hg$jld$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>
>>>>> glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And telnetting to it from a Mac.  And Microsoft still ain't using
>>>>>>Windows to serve their web site.
>>>>> 
>>>>> They are you retarded jackass, the use akamai to cache their servers,
>>>>
>>>>Your lack of education and low level of intelligence
>>> 
>>> Says someone who is forging the address abuse@msn.com?
>>
>>And this complaint comes from "bogus@invalid.tld" ? :)
> 
> Yes, you got problems with that?

No, I do not have any problems with that.
You were the one having problems with me using a fake address, yet when I
point out that you are doing the same, then you get all upset. 

> 
> At least it is not stealing/forging a domain that I do not own.
> 

So you claim to own the "invalid.tld" domain ? Liar!

[snip pointless drivel and name calling that does not refute any of my points]

> Also Apple uses Akamai, does that mean that they cannot handle their own
> hosting? 
> 
That's right. And they have never claimed that there OS is an enterprise level
server OS that should be used for web serving and other server task. However,
that is exactly what Microsoft is claiming. You lost this argument too.

[snip more bovine excrement spewed out of the mouth of "bogus"]

So far you were unable to refute and/or silently admitted the following:

1. You are a clueless teenager with education level way below high-school
2. Linux is more suitable for enterprise level web serving than Windows
3. Microsoft clearly admits and demonstrates the above by using Akamai
4. You are stealing/forging the identity of a Linux user

The question that remains is: what is the reason for doing #4 above ?
Is this a kind of penis envy ? Would you like to look like a Linux user ?
I have good news for you: you do not need to envy us, you may become a linux
user yourself. It is really not difficult. My 6 year old daughter can handle
linux fine, so even you might be able to do it if you try. 

-- 
Windows = A 32 bit extension to a GUI shell to a 16 bit patch to an 
8 bit OS originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor and sold by a 
2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
LGX = A true 64 bit OS, running on HW from wrist-watch to mainframes.

With his mom's balls bouncing off his chin bogus@invalid.tld mumbled
to Iam Amuthon:

> You got your sorry ass spanked as usual, now it is time for you grow up
> and get some education, shitbrick.

Your lack of education is obvious. Projecting your illiteracy and
incompetence toward others only highlights your stupidity and augments
your insignificance.

Watching a pathetic cunt-wart like you declare victory is just sad. 
It's like watching Saddam crawl out of his hole screaming, "I win!
Nyah nyah nyah!" You can shout, "I win!" all you want, but everyone
here knows the truth.

Your just a pissed off dipshit loser and you always will be.

Now go back to your mom's flame-adorned El Camino and crank up your
stolen Linkin Park CD. I've grown bored of fucking your bleeding
man-twat.

Ian Amuhton <abuse@msn.com> writes:

> bogus@invalid.tld wrote in <s90otvof6hfu565m96jf0qmbernfo31a40@4ax.com> at
> December 14, 2003 01:34 am
>
>> In article <qkSCb.13271$NNW1.10947@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
>> Ian Amuhton <abuse@msn.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>bogus@invalid.tld wrote in <7okntvkcads0vo7rkf7inhjvi22ti452f7@4ax.com> at
>>>December 13, 2003 10:13 pm
>>>
>>>> 
>>>> Says someone who is forging the address abuse@msn.com?
>>>
>>>And this complaint comes from "bogus@invalid.tld" ? :)
>> 
>> Yes, you got problems with that?
>
> No, I do not have any problems with that.  You were the one having
> problems with me using a fake address, yet when I point out that you
> are doing the same, then you get all upset.

The fake address he's using involves neither a real email address nor
a real domain name.  abuse@msn.com is apparently a real email address
and at least it's a real domain (with real mail servers).

I don't appreciate any forged from addresses in Usenet.  But his
obfuscation is considerably less worrisome than yours.

-- 
Jesse Hughes 
"How come there's still apes running around loose and there are
humans?  Why did some of them decide to evolve and some did not?  Did
they choose to stay as a monkey or what?" -Kans. Board of Ed member

Jesse F. Hughes wrote in <87wu8xvi59.fsf@phiwumbda.org> at December 15, 2003
05:19 pm
> 
> The fake address he's using involves neither a real email address nor
> a real domain name.  abuse@msn.com is apparently a real email address
> and at least it's a real domain (with real mail servers).
> 
> I don't appreciate any forged from addresses in Usenet.  But his
> obfuscation is considerably less worrisome than yours.
> 

I appreciate your concerns. But let me put it in a different angle:
It is obvious for any human reader that abuse@msn.com is not my real email
address simply by the nature of the address. So nobody is really "fooled" by
the fake address. However, when it is harvested by spambots and then later
some spam gets sent to it, then it serves a useful purpose by automatically
reporting some email abuse (spamming).

As a matter of fact, I have been lurking in this NG since 1996, occasionally
posting from 1998 and for a few years I have been using my real name and
valid email address. Earlier the spam volume was not too bad. But recently it
has escalated to rather annoying levels. With the addition of Microsoft virii
being joined with spam, the email servers and generally the internet is being
overloaded with this garbage. I am using spamassassin but that is only a
passive end-filtering, it does not reduce the problem.

I wish the internet and these newsgroups were as peaceful as they were at the
end of the nineties, but unfortunately it became rather hostile territory.

-- 
Windows = A 32 bit extension to a GUI shell to a 16 bit patch to an 
8 bit OS originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor and sold by a 
2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
LGX = A true 64 bit OS, running on HW from wrist-watch to mainframes.

Ian Amuhton <abuse@msn.com> writes:

> Jesse F. Hughes wrote in <87wu8xvi59.fsf@phiwumbda.org> at December 15, 2003
> 05:19 pm
>> 
>> The fake address he's using involves neither a real email address nor
>> a real domain name.  abuse@msn.com is apparently a real email address
>> and at least it's a real domain (with real mail servers).
>> 
>> I don't appreciate any forged from addresses in Usenet.  But his
>> obfuscation is considerably less worrisome than yours.
>> 
>
> I appreciate your concerns. But let me put it in a different angle:
> It is obvious for any human reader that abuse@msn.com is not my real
> email address simply by the nature of the address. So nobody is
> really "fooled" by the fake address. However, when it is harvested
> by spambots and then later some spam gets sent to it, then it serves
> a useful purpose by automatically reporting some email abuse
> (spamming).

Why would msn.com care if you're getting spammed?  Are you an msn.com
user?  More importantly, are all of the spammers msn.com users?

In any case, I've certainly been fooled by fake addresses by hitting
"reply" without looking at the address.

> As a matter of fact, I have been lurking in this NG since 1996,
> occasionally posting from 1998 and for a few years I have been using
> my real name and valid email address. Earlier the spam volume was
> not too bad. But recently it has escalated to rather annoying
> levels. With the addition of Microsoft virii being joined with spam,
> the email servers and generally the internet is being overloaded
> with this garbage. I am using spamassassin but that is only a
> passive end-filtering, it does not reduce the problem.
>
> I wish the internet and these newsgroups were as peaceful as they
> were at the end of the nineties, but unfortunately it became rather
> hostile territory.

None of this provides any excuse for using abuse@msn.com as your email
address.

By the way, I use a valid email address and have not been overwhelmed
by spam.  I *do* use very minor procmail filtering (email with mislabeled
Microsoft executable attachments are sent to /dev/null) and some
Bayesian filtering, but the Bayesian filters catch only about 20 or so
spam a day.

I don't really find that spam is a good reason to break the rules of
Usenet, but I know that others disagree and I won't argue that point.
You have, however, forged a valid email address.  Somehow, I don't
think you picked abuse@msn.com out of a disinterested attempt to get
back at spammers.  You picked them because it's a Microsoft address,
I'd wager.  Worse, by using their address, you are deluging them with
spam, most of which they can't do much about, and thereby decreasing
their ability to respond to legitimate abuse complaints.

Obfuscate your email address if you must, but don't forge a real
address.

-- 
"A recruitment consultant I know thinks the most important quality in
a winner is to be lucky.  To avoid wasting his time with unlucky
applicants, he takes half the resumes piled on his desk and throws
them straight in the bin."  -- John Ramsden

Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Jesse F. Hughes mumbled this incantation:

> The fake address he's using involves neither a real email address nor
> a real domain name.  abuse@msn.com is apparently a real email address
> and at least it's a real domain (with real mail servers).
> 
> I don't appreciate any forged from addresses in Usenet.  But his
> obfuscation is considerably less worrisome than yours.

Gee, that's too bad that you apparently feel an obviously bogus address
is better than a non-obviously bogus address.  You must **hate** my
headers:

   From: Lin�nut <"lin�nut"@bone.com>
   Reply-To: lin�nut@bone.com
   Organization: Xerox P�RC
   X-Complaints-To: abuse@me.com
   X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@me.net
   NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.46.230.219
   X-Complaints-To: billg@crimosoft.com
   X-Spambayes-Classification: 0.8999999

Too bad.  It cuts down on spam.

-- 
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!

Lin�nut wrote:
> Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Jesse F. Hughes mumbled this incantation:
> 
> 
>>The fake address he's using involves neither a real email address nor
>>a real domain name.  abuse@msn.com is apparently a real email address
>>and at least it's a real domain (with real mail servers).
>>
>>I don't appreciate any forged from addresses in Usenet.  But his
>>obfuscation is considerably less worrisome than yours.
> 
> 
> Gee, that's too bad that you apparently feel an obviously bogus address
> is better than a non-obviously bogus address.  You must **hate** my
> headers:
> 
>    From: Lin�nut <"lin�nut"@bone.com>
>    Reply-To: lin�nut@bone.com
>    Organization: Xerox P�RC
>    X-Complaints-To: abuse@me.com
>    X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@me.net
>    NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.46.230.219
>    X-Complaints-To: billg@crimosoft.com
>    X-Spambayes-Classification: 0.8999999
> 
> Too bad.  It cuts down on spam.
> 
yet, you are still here.

Lin=F8nut <lin=F8nut@bone.com> writes:

> Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Jesse F. Hughes mumbled this incantation:
>
>> The fake address he's using involves neither a real email address nor
>> a real domain name.  abuse@msn.com is apparently a real email address
>> and at least it's a real domain (with real mail servers).
>>=20
>> I don't appreciate any forged from addresses in Usenet.  But his
>> obfuscation is considerably less worrisome than yours.
>
> Gee, that's too bad that you apparently feel an obviously bogus address
> is better than a non-obviously bogus address.  You must **hate** my
> headers:

It has less to do with "obvious bogusness" and more to do with whether
the forgery decreases your spam problems by increasing someone else's.

>    From: Lin=F8nut <"lin=F8nut"@bone.com>
>    Reply-To: lin=F8nut@bone.com
>    Organization: Xerox P=D8RC
>    X-Complaints-To: abuse@me.com
>    X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@me.net
>    NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.46.230.219
>    X-Complaints-To: billg@crimosoft.com
>    X-Spambayes-Classification: 0.8999999
>
> Too bad.  It cuts down on spam.

Yours doesn't apparently cut down on spam by sending it to some other
mailbox.  Well, the X-DMCA-Complaints-To line does, actually.  me.net
is a real hostname, and so they're getting more spam thanks to you.
(I didn't check everything up there.)  That spam isn't likely to be
deliverable, but it's still more than they would have gotten
otherwise.

Why do you suppose it's okay to abuse others' domainnames this way?
Are you defending Ian's forgery of a real email address?  Using an
email address with a host which does not exist is just as easy as
using a real email address or (like you) a fake email address with a
real hostname.  Or use a fake email address for a real host under your
own control if you prefer[1].

But, of course, even if you did not use a real hostname, then I would
still disapprove of your obfuscated email address.  Advocates of open
source software should not disregard open standards (like the
standards regarding Usenet posting headers) just because it is
convenient.  Nonetheless, though I don't think anyone should use
obfuscated From: headers, I do not complain when they use them *as*
*long* *as* they aren't increasing someone else's spam problem.=20

Why not ask me.net what they think of your header?  Ask them how many
bounces that email address gets.  Maybe it's negligible, maybe not.
But don't you think that simple consideration for others requires that
you do not use their domainnames as a spam trap?

Finally: I do not forge my From: header and my spam problem is
manageable with the prudent use of open source tools like procmail and
bogofilter.  So the fact that forging email addresses cuts down on
spam (by sending it to someone else) is not a compelling argument to
me.=20

Footnotes:=20
[1]  For all I know, me.net *is* under the linonut's control.  But I
doubt it.

--=20
"Even if [...] a communistic regime should come [to China], the old
tradition [...] will break Communism and change it beyond recognition,
rather than Communism [...] break the old tradition.  It must be so."=20
    -- Lin Yutang on "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" in 1935

Jesse F. Hughes wrote in <87ekv4t0qf.fsf@phiwumbda.org> at December 17, 2003
01:30 am
> 
> Yours doesn't apparently cut down on spam by sending it to some other
> mailbox.  
[snip]
> 
> Why do you suppose it's okay to abuse others' domainnames this way?
> Are you defending Ian's forgery of a real email address?  Using an
> email address with a host which does not exist is just as easy as
> using a real email address or (like you) a fake email address with a
> real hostname.  Or use a fake email address for a real host under your
> own control if you prefer[1].

OK, you convinced me. How about root@127.0.0.1 ?
1. It does not put the burden on any 3rd party 
2. It is not an invalid/nonexistent address that would make at least a
round-trip to a MTA who can't find the recipient so bounces
3. Maximum the sender of the spam can incur some local overhead with it
and I do not feel any pity for them

-- 
Windows = A 32 bit extension to a GUI shell to a 16 bit patch to an 
8 bit OS originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor and sold by a 
2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
LGX = A true 64 bit OS, running on HW from wrist-watch to mainframes.

Ian Amuhton <root@127.0.0.1> writes:

> Jesse F. Hughes wrote in <87ekv4t0qf.fsf@phiwumbda.org> at December 17, 2003
> 01:30 am
>> 
>> Yours doesn't apparently cut down on spam by sending it to some other
>> mailbox.  
> [snip]
>> 
>> Why do you suppose it's okay to abuse others' domainnames this way?
>> Are you defending Ian's forgery of a real email address?  Using an
>> email address with a host which does not exist is just as easy as
>> using a real email address or (like you) a fake email address with a
>> real hostname.  Or use a fake email address for a real host under your
>> own control if you prefer[1].
>
> OK, you convinced me. How about root@127.0.0.1 ?

If you must obfuscate your email address, I see nothing wrong with
that one.  But I'll bet it doesn't fool much spam software.  (I could
be wrong -- maybe spam software really is so stupid that it will send
spam to 127.0.0.1.)

-- 
Jesse F. Hughes
"Mathematicians don't fit in with a consistent view, unless you accept
that to a strangely large extent they are acting under the influence
of something very powerful, dark, and negative." -- James S. Harris

begin  In
<yv4Eb.82160$%TO.70056@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, on
12/17/2003
   at 10:10 PM, Ian Amuhton <root@127.0.0.1> said:

>OK, you convinced me. How about root@127.0.0.1 ?
>1. It does not put the burden on any 3rd party 
>2. It is not an invalid/nonexistent address that would make at least
>a round-trip to a MTA who can't find the recipient so bounces

Incorrect. Try abuse@[127.0.0.1]; it's not an IP address without the
brackets.

>3. Maximum the sender of the spam

It might be a legitimate message, from someone replying to your
article without paying attention to what the address was. -- 
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

Unsolicited bulk E-mail will be subject to legal action.  I reserve
the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.

Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do
not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org