The real overloaded costs for linux...

Linux Freeloading Advocate

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 8:44:20 AM1/5/06

to

.. Stem from the unforgivable incompetents in the administering of open
source, as well as the labor intensity caused by such a mish-mash of
flavours' and built-in vulnerabilities.

It's no wonder linux needs firewalls, AV's, and anything else bundled with
it to stave off the penetration of its weaknesses.

Even Novell admit as much. I think they are beginning to regret their
decision.

http://www.novell.com/linux/security/securitysupport.html

http://www.linuxsecurity.com/

Pick the bones out of that lot!

--
Please remove GLOCK ME NOW to SPAM me.

Gordon

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 1:16:56 PM1/5/06

to

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 08:44:20 -0500, Linux Freeloading Advocate wrote:

>
> It's no wonder linux needs firewalls, AV's, and anything else bundled with
> it to stave off the penetration of its weaknesses.

Eh? What a load of drivelling rubbish. I've run Ubuntu 5.10 on always-on
broadband with no firewall or AV for 6 months and got NOTHING - do you
hear, NOTHING. I once re-installed Windows XP (within the last 12
months) and forgot to remove the network cable while doing so and was
infected with a virus in 20 SECONDS.
Stuff THAT in your pipe and smoke it with whatever waccy baccy you've got
in there already.

--
Registered Linux User no 240308
Ubuntu 5.10
gordonDOTburgessparkerATgbpcomputingDOTcoDOTuk
to email me replace the obvious!

Ray Ingles

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 1:23:42 PM1/5/06

to

On 2006-01-05, Linux Freeloading Advocate

<peterGLOCK....@Nt-Oonline.deW> wrote:
> .. Stem from the unforgivable incompetents in the administering of open
> source, as well as the labor intensity caused by such a mish-mash of
> flavours' and built-in vulnerabilities.
>
> It's no wonder linux needs firewalls, AV's, and anything else bundled with
> it to stave off the penetration of its weaknesses.

You're going to need to work on your writing skills. Seriously, just
taking a paragraph about "Windows" and "closed source" and swapping
terms doesn't make a good troll.

You don't even really try to say anything even halfway plausible. I
mean, I know trolls are lazy in general, but that's just sad. Remember,
*half*-truths are the key to a solid trolling attempt!

--
Sincerely,

Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317

If all the muscles in your body pulled in the same direction,
you could lift over twenty tons. But you'd walk funny.
- L. M. Boyd

Linux Freeloading Advocate

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 1:34:55 PM1/5/06

to

Gordon gor...@localhost.localdomain, wrote in message
an.2006.01.05....@localhost.localdomain:

> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 08:44:20 -0500, Linux Freeloading Advocate wrote:
>
>
>>
>> It's no wonder linux needs firewalls, AV's, and anything else
>> bundled with it to stave off the penetration of its weaknesses.
>
> Eh? What a load of drivelling rubbish.

I personally didn't think that badly of SuSe, but maybe you have a point.
Perhaps it was that bad.

> I've run Ubuntu 5.10 on
> always-on broadband with no firewall or AV for 6 months and got
> NOTHING - do you hear, NOTHING.

Yeah - Did you ask for a refund?

hoda...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 1:36:14 PM1/5/06

to

> t's no wonder linux needs firewalls, AV's, and anything else bundled with
> it to stave off the penetration of its weaknesses.

Actually, aren't most of the antivirus products for Linux for scanning
for Windows viruses (like on email servers and such)?

Linux Freeloading Advocate

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 1:39:04 PM1/5/06

to

Ray Ingles sorc...@localhost.localdomain, wrote in message
lrndrqpbc.1...@localhost.localdomain:

> On 2006-01-05, Linux Freeloading Advocate
> <peterGLOCK....@Nt-Oonline.deW> wrote:
>> .. Stem from the unforgivable incompetents in the administering of
>> open source, as well as the labor intensity caused by such a
>> mish-mash of flavours' and built-in vulnerabilities.
>>
>> It's no wonder linux needs firewalls, AV's, and anything else
>> bundled with it to stave off the penetration of its weaknesses.
>
> You're going to need to work on your writing skills. Seriously, just
> taking a paragraph about "Windows" and "closed source" and swapping
> terms doesn't make a good troll.
>
> You don't even really try to say anything even halfway plausible. I
> mean, I know trolls are lazy in general, but that's just sad.
> Remember, *half*-truths are the key to a solid trolling attempt!

I'll take that as you having no idea of truth and absurdity then. Get a
brain, Mungo.

".. Stem from the unforgivable incompetents in the administering of open
source, as well as the labor intensity caused by such a mish-mash of
flavours' and built-in vulnerabilities."

True, but absurd.

"It's no wonder linux needs firewalls, AV's, and anything else bundled with
it to stave off the penetration of its weaknesses."

Absurd, but true.

Aragorn

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 2:01:12 PM1/5/06

to

On Thursday 05 January 2006 19:36, hoda...@gmail.com stood up and spoke
the following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/

That is correct, and I would even go as far as to say: "Substitute
/most/ by /all/".

There are no real GNU/Linux viruses out in the wild, and those that
exist in confined environments are in fact not viruses but security
exploits which have in the meantime already been patched for long.

I personally have knowledge of only one real virus for GNU/Linux that
could infect ELF binaries, but only within the confined environment of
the user's privileges. It was a hybrid virus, in that it infected both
GNU/Linux and Windows. I think that must have been around 2001.

There are of course such things as worms, but it is rarely seen - if
ever - that they propagate themselves or infect files on GNU/Linux.
Most worms targetted at GNU/Linux are intended to cause a
denial-of-service or exploit a weakness in one of the typical server
applications such as PHP, CGI or Apache.

Many of the vulnerabilities in GNU/Linux are also of such nature that
they require a perpetrator to already have access to the machine, and
in many cases even local access.

Most distributions have security advisories, from which patched updates
can be downloaded, and in the majority of the cases, patches are
already available long before that as source code. The availability of
updates is also far more frequent than is the case for Microsoft
Windows, and new kernel versions come out on a regular basis.

It also deserves to be noted that most of the kernel patches a
distribution applies to its distro-specific kernel are backports from
the - in the meantime between the development and release of a
distribution - newer vanilla kernels, which are mainly bugfixes, or
else that they are patches that add functionality - e.g. the Win4Lin
kernels, kernels with the /supermount/ patch, /SELinux,/ et al.

--
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

Clack Boondocks Glover

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 2:02:10 PM1/5/06

to

Gordon wrote:
>
> I've run Ubuntu 5.10 on
> always-on broadband with no firewall or AV for 6 months and got
> NOTHING - do you hear, NOTHING.

You're a lying fuck, Gordie.

Ubuntu uses iptables by default, so your claim of "no firewall" is a lie.

Kindly FOAD, taking your fellow advocates with you.

Larry Qualig

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 2:08:11 PM1/5/06

to

And by the same "default" the Windows box would become infected.
Listen... I use Windows on most of my machines at home. But no way
would I use Windows without putting it behind my Linksys
router/firewall.

(Hmmmmm..... I may have forgotten what OS my Linksys router runs
internally so a few dozen posts reminding me may be necessary.)

AZ Nomad

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 2:13:37 PM1/5/06

to

Moron. He was obviously refering to the use of an external firewall.

chrisv

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 2:34:56 PM1/5/06

to

Ray Ingles wrote:

>On 2006-01-05, Linux Freeloading Advocate
>>

>>(snip obvious nonsense)

>
> You're going to need to work on your writing skills. Seriously, just
>taking a paragraph about "Windows" and "closed source" and swapping
>terms doesn't make a good troll.
>
> You don't even really try to say anything even halfway plausible. I
>mean, I know trolls are lazy in general, but that's just sad. Remember,
>*half*-truths are the key to a solid trolling attempt!

It sure doesn't take much talent to be a successful troll, in here...

"Linux burned down my house."

"Suse took 3 days to install."

"Linux is less secure than Windows."

Larry Qualig

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 2:41:58 PM1/5/06

to

Careful there... Someone is bound to take this out of context and use
it as their new sig? <g>

================================
"Linux burned down my house" - chrisv

George Ellison

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 3:05:10 PM1/5/06

to

AZ Nomad <azn...@PmunOgeBOX.com> writes:

FWIW, I typically don't bother w/iptables on my Gentoo box. That's probably
courting disaster somewhere down the line, but 4 mos or so have gone by
without any sort of trouble.

tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 3:11:26 PM1/5/06

to

Clack Boondocks Glover <clack...@example.c0m> wrote:
>

> Ubuntu uses iptables by default, so your claim of "no firewall" is a lie.

What are the default iptables rules in place on Ubuntu? Is it
possible he elected to run without them?

I have several linux systems running with no firewall rules in
place. I just leave off the unnecessary services and occasionally
bang the Yes button when they prompt to download updates. Creeping
up on 10 years and no security issues yet.

Thad

Linux Exposer

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 3:11:00 PM1/5/06

to

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:16:56 +0000, Gordon wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 08:44:20 -0500, Linux Freeloading Advocate wrote:
>
>
>>
>> It's no wonder linux needs firewalls, AV's, and anything else bundled with
>> it to stave off the penetration of its weaknesses.
>
> Eh? What a load of drivelling rubbish. I've run Ubuntu 5.10 on always-on
> broadband with no firewall or AV for 6 months and got NOTHING - do you
> hear, NOTHING.

Linux Advocate Technique #1 Just lie, lie and lie.
Maybe that's why its's called LIE-nix by many who have tried it.

Ever hear of iptables?

Also a poor attempt at Linux Advocate Technique #2 which is
the DISTRIBUTION SHUFFLE.

For those of you who remember the 70's, it used to be called
"The Hustle", Van Mcoy invented it.
Linux advocates stole it.

--
Never trust a Linux Advocate.
Words are cheap. Linux advocates' words are worthless. (THANX DFS)
Linux..If you think you hate it now..wait until you try it.

AZ Nomad

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 3:11:47 PM1/5/06

to

>AZ Nomad <azn...@PmunOgeBOX.com> writes:

Besides, no firewall can protect a windows box when the user requests
3rd party be installed and the user is an administrator. It doesn't matter
that the user didn't even know the software request was made. A firewall
can't stop such a download.

Too many of the worms that plague windows machines and just about all
the spyware are not stopped by firewalls.

Linux Exposer

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 3:15:09 PM1/5/06

to

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 13:23:42 -0500, Ray Ingles wrote:

>
> You're going to need to work on your writing skills.
>

> You don't even really try to say anything even halfway plausible.

Linux Advocate Technique #3 Attack the posters grammer, spelling, top
posting etc. Anything to take the focus off the meaning of the message.

--
Never trust a Linux Advocate.
Words are cheap. Linux advocates' words are worthless.

Linux Exposer

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 3:18:29 PM1/5/06

to

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 19:01:12 +0000, Aragorn wrote:

> It also deserves to be noted that most of the kernel patches a
> distribution applies to its distro-specific kernel are backports from
> the - in the meantime between the development and release of a
> distribution - newer vanilla kernels, which are mainly bugfixes, or
> else that they are patches that add functionality - e.g. the Win4Lin
> kernels, kernels with the /supermount/ patch, /SELinux,/ et al.

Lienix Advocate Technique #4

Attempt to baffle the reader with technobabble that is understood by only
the Linenix geeks and few others except those who have infiltrated the
Lienix cult and have obtained the secret translator module.

Gordon

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 3:26:37 PM1/5/06

to

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:15:09 -0500, Linux Exposer wrote:

>
> Linux Advocate Technique #3 Attack the posters grammer,

The uneducated, ie those who are so thick they can't even use a spell
checker properly, are not worthy of any consideration at all.

Roy L. Fuchs

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 3:27:51 PM1/5/06

to

Gordon wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:15:09 -0500, Linux Exposer wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Linux Advocate Technique #3 Attack the posters grammer,
>
> The uneducated, ie those who are so thick they can't even use a spell
> checker properly, are not worthy of any consideration at all.

He said _GRAMMER_ not Spell Checker you stupid fucking luser.

Gordon

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 3:32:17 PM1/5/06

to

And you are just as fucking stupid you gormless cunt, it's spelt
G-R-A-M-M-A-R you tart

Roy L. Fuchs

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 3:34:58 PM1/5/06

to

Gordon wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 12:27:51 -0800, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>
>> Gordon wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:15:09 -0500, Linux Exposer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Linux Advocate Technique #3 Attack the posters grammer,
>>>
>>> The uneducated, ie those who are so thick they can't even use a
>>> spell checker properly, are not worthy of any consideration at all.
>>
>> He said _GRAMMER_ not Spell Checker you stupid fucking luser.
>
> And you are just as fucking stupid you gormless cunt, it's spelt
> G-R-A-M-M-A-R you tart

I never claimed to be anything else. But I ain't a luser like you are who
can only attack the posters instead of giving a valid argument. Fucking
lusers like you need to be shot.

Linux Exposer

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 3:42:39 PM1/5/06

to

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:32:17 +0000, Gordon wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 12:27:51 -0800, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>
>> Gordon wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:15:09 -0500, Linux Exposer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Linux Advocate Technique #3 Attack the posters grammer,
>>>
>>> The uneducated, ie those who are so thick they can't even use a spell
>>> checker properly, are not worthy of any consideration at all.
>>
>> He said _GRAMMER_ not Spell Checker you stupid fucking luser.
>
> And you are just as fucking stupid you gormless cunt, it's spelt
> G-R-A-M-M-A-R you tart

And you took the bait hook, line and sinker.
It's like taking candee from a baby.
(Let's see if you get sucked in again).

Gordon

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 3:45:13 PM1/5/06

to

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:42:39 -0500, Linux Exposer wrote:

> It's like taking candee from a baby.

And I suppose "candee" is some colonialism?

Clack Boondocks Glover

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 3:49:52 PM1/5/06

to

Gordon wrote:
> --
> gormless cunt

Gordon

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 3:55:18 PM1/5/06

to

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:49:52 -0600, Clack Boondocks Glover wrote:

Oh deary me. It's so sad to see people throwing away effort for no reason
at all. Do you REALLY think that I've got no spam filters in place?

Roy L. Fuchs

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 3:58:31 PM1/5/06

to

Gordon wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:49:52 -0600, Clack Boondocks Glover wrote:
>
> Oh deary me. It's so sad to see people throwing away effort for no
> reason at all. Do you REALLY think that I've got no spam filters in
> place?

I for one, *REALLY* think you're that stupid. Yes.

Gordon

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 4:03:29 PM1/5/06

to

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 12:58:31 -0800, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

> Gordon wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:49:52 -0600, Clack Boondocks Glover wrote:
>>
>> Oh deary me. It's so sad to see people throwing away effort for no
>> reason at all. Do you REALLY think that I've got no spam filters in
>> place?
>
> I for one, *REALLY* think you're that stupid. Yes.

Then that's proof positive that Windows completely rots your brain, and
you just don't know!

Roy L. Fuchs

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 4:05:13 PM1/5/06

to

Gordon wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 12:58:31 -0800, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>
>> Gordon wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:49:52 -0600, Clack Boondocks Glover wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh deary me. It's so sad to see people throwing away effort for no
>>> reason at all. Do you REALLY think that I've got no spam filters in
>>> place?
>>
>> I for one, *REALLY* think you're that stupid. Yes.
>
> Then that's proof positive that Windows completely rots your brain,
> and you just don't know!

Idiot, I don't use Windows. I use Suse. You're still stupid though.

Gordon

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 4:18:26 PM1/5/06

to

Well, when was Outhouse Express ported to Linux then?

Roy L. Fuchs

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 4:21:50 PM1/5/06

to

Gordon wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 13:05:13 -0800, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>
>> Gordon wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 12:58:31 -0800, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gordon wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:49:52 -0600, Clack Boondocks Glover wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh deary me. It's so sad to see people throwing away effort for no
>>>>> reason at all. Do you REALLY think that I've got no spam filters
>>>>> in place?
>>>>
>>>> I for one, *REALLY* think you're that stupid. Yes.
>>>
>>> Then that's proof positive that Windows completely rots your brain,
>>> and you just don't know!
>>
>> Idiot, I don't use Windows. I use Suse. You're still stupid though.
>
> Well, when was Outhouse Express ported to Linux then?

?? What is "Outhouse Express"? Are you confused, or trying to be cute
somehow?

rex.b...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 4:29:43 PM1/5/06

to

Linux Freeloading Advocate wrote:
> It's no wonder linux needs firewalls,

Windows needed external firewalls, because with FAT32, there is NO
security.
A default configuration of Windows often has a guest account, users log
in as administrators, and all directories are available to all users
for all functions (read, write, execute).

When Windows 95 came out, it was comical to see subordinates "hacking"
into their boss's computers by simply hitting "cancel" when prompted
for a login and opening a share. The ONLY way to keep data secure, was
to take it with you, and keep the building locked and guarded.

When cable modems and DSL was first deployed, windows users could
access the "shares" of their next door neighbors - including $C.

Most corporations use UNIX based firewalls - or Linux based firewalls -
for security. This includes firewall/routers like CISCO, Nortel, and
Nokia.

Most home users get a Linux powered router - from Netgear, Linksys,
DLink, or Belkin.

Many have cable modems or DSL modems based on Linux or Unix - from
Motorola.

You only THINK you don't use Linux or Unix. If you didn't have Linux
and Unix, Windows would be instantly flooded with every imaginable form
of malware - because there would be nothing to keep the PCs from
sharing their files with each other's viruses - and reaching "critical
mass".

> AV's, and anything else bundled with
> it to stave off the penetration of its weaknesses.

Antiviruses are sold separately as well - for good reason. Microsoft
had an antivirus product, but it was very selective about which viruses
it didn't want to catch and remove.
Eventually, hackers figured out the back door, and Windows machines not
protected with Norton or some third party AV had to be reimaged.

Today, there are many "experts" who are telling their readers and
clients that the best way to handle a computer that has been infested
with Malware - is to replace it - (and convert the now useless PC to
Linux). Many people seem to be taking this advice, but many are now
just picking PCs that will run Linux well - because they have grown to
LIKE Linux.

> Even Novell admit as much. I think they are beginning to regret their
> decision.
>
> http://www.novell.com/linux/security/securitysupport.html

Read the article cited:
http://www.novell.com/linux/security/forrester.html

It very clearly points out that the author of the article "Linux more
Secure than Windows?", who claimed that Windows was more secure than
Linux because Linux had more "buffer overrun errors" - most of which
were protected by layers of defensive code designed to prevent the
actual overrun from happening.

<quote>
GNU/Linux vendors Debian, Mandrake, Red Hat, and SUSE have joined
together to give a common statement about the Forrester report entitled
"Is Linux more Secure than Windows?". Despite the report's claim to
incorporate a qualitative assessment of vendor reactions to serious
vulnerabilities, it treats all vulnerabilities as equal, regardless of
their risk to users. As a result, the conclusions drawn by Forrester
have extremely limited real-world value for customers assessing the
practical issue of how quickly serious vulnerabilities get fixed.
</quote>

Microsoft has been trotting these out because so many of their known
vulnerabilities are protected by nondisclosure agreements which have
been enforced with gag orders, including seizure of equipment and
prosecution of publishers.

Microsoft once touted that Windows NT had C2 security, of course, the
configuration described in their certification document was practically
useless, required significant reconfiguration, and would be useless in
a corporate or military environment.

It is possible to make Windows far more secure that it is when it comes
out of the box, but Microsoft has a very highly vested interest in NOT
having those security changes made, because it kills some of Bill's
favorite "features" - like having Microsoft as a Trusted CA, having
Microsoft capture "customer support" information - like what software
you are running, serial numbers of processors, hard drives, and lan
cards. Like Passport - which gives Microsoft access to all of your
credit card and financial information.

And some people think that all of this vulnerability is a "good thing"
- it helps identify pedophiles, drug pushers, terrorists, and even
liberals - without having to bother about minor details like search
warrants.

Of course, that means the rest of us have to deal with spyware that
sends personal information to pretty much anybody who wants it (and
pays NOT to be blown away by the antivirus software) and viruses that
steal credit card information (though ironically, most indentity theft
is actually "low tech" - dumpster diving for receipts and bills.

> http://www.linuxsecurity.com/

I find it amusing that the NSA has actually complained that Linux is
TOO secure, yet Microsoft is claiming that Windows is more secure.
Again - in some - really impractical - configurations - Windows could
be made as secure as a typical Linux system.

Disable ActiveX controls completely.
Disable Signed Java Applets completely.
Disable HTML previewing completely.
Disable all scripting completely.
Disable attachments completely.
Disable all ports not otherwise used - using an external (*nix)
firewall.
Disable incoming connections completely.
Disable all servers and services (with a few exceptions).
Disable Netbios, NetBeui, and file sharing (client AND server).
Set all home permissions to "read by owner" only.

create c:/<user> directories (nothing shared) and place all personal
files in that directory.
set all permissions in those files to "owner only".
disable write on all DLLs, EXEs, and other executables, and the
directories that contain them.

Create user IDs that restrict the user completely - and only give those
restricted IDs to your users. No users can administer their own
machines.

And IF you are not fired because no one is getting any work done, and
everyone who cares quits because they can't do their jobs - you'll end
up with lots of people who just want to play "solitaire" all day.
Security problem solved.

> Please remove GLOCK ME NOW to SPAM me.

Gordon

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 4:30:02 PM1/5/06

to

The crappy "email and news reading" client that doesn't post or quote
properly unless in true MS fashion, the user has to download and install
OE-Quotefix from an independent software writer to correct all the faults
in it.

Jim Richardson

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 4:38:03 PM1/5/06

to

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

default iptables rules on Ubuntu are all open. Ubuntu doesn't rely on
the firewall, instead, it doesn't offer services to the network
interface, unless explicitly configured to do so. (see avahi &etc)

the troll is simply misinformed, or lying. Even money either way.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDvZG7d90bcYOAWPYRAmzVAJ4pxHZ4Pj02WvMLsq4dVDk1JtneJgCcCSY1
e4PclS/ZuQt3Ac4lE5RCbSw=
=xRVh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
People who say that money can't buy happiness just don't know where to
shop.

Clack Boondocks Glover

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 4:40:12 PM1/5/06

to

Gordon wrote:
> O

Gordon

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 4:43:39 PM1/5/06

to

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:40:12 -0600, Clack Boondocks Glover wrote:

Sorry, that won't work either!try again.

Dom

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 4:48:48 PM1/5/06

to

> The uneducated are not worthy of any consideration at all.

The above constitutes a very serious reasoning error.

Diogenes

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 4:50:29 PM1/5/06

to

Gordon wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 13:21:50 -0800, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>
>> Gordon wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 13:05:13 -0800, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gordon wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 12:58:31 -0800, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gordon wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:49:52 -0600, Clack Boondocks Glover
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh deary me. It's so sad to see people throwing away effort for
>>>>>>> no reason at all. Do you REALLY think that I've got no spam
>>>>>>> filters in place?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I for one, *REALLY* think you're that stupid. Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then that's proof positive that Windows completely rots your
>>>>> brain, and you just don't know!
>>>>
>>>> Idiot, I don't use Windows. I use Suse. You're still stupid though.
>>>
>>> Well, when was Outhouse Express ported to Linux then?
>>
>> ?? What is "Outhouse Express"? Are you confused, or trying to be cute
>> somehow?
>
> The crappy "email and news reading" client that doesn't post or quote
> properly unless in true MS fashion, the user has to download and
> install OE-Quotefix from an independent software writer to correct
> all the faults in it.

If you're talking about Outlook Express, it is by far the BEST newsreader
available. Try it, you'll like it!

Gordon

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 4:55:29 PM1/5/06

to

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:48:48 -0600, Dom wrote:

>> The uneducated are not worthy of any consideration at all.
>
> The above constitutes a very serious reasoning error.

Not in a semi-technical newsgroup as this, no.

Gordon

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 4:56:48 PM1/5/06

to

Considering it doesn't quote properly, nor does it snip signatures
properly, neither does it bottom post as default, then yes, I suppose it
might be quite good.......

Aragorn

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 5:04:12 PM1/5/06

to

On Thursday 05 January 2006 21:18, Linux Exposer stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/

> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 19:01:12 +0000, Aragorn wrote:
>
>
>> It also deserves to be noted that most of the kernel patches a
>> distribution applies to its distro-specific kernel are backports from
>> the - in the meantime between the development and release of a
>> distribution - newer vanilla kernels, which are mainly bugfixes, or
>> else that they are patches that add functionality - e.g. the Win4Lin
>> kernels, kernels with the /supermount/ patch, /SELinux,/ et al.
>
> Lienix Advocate Technique #4
>
> Attempt to baffle the reader with technobabble that is understood by
> only the Linenix geeks and few others except those who have
> infiltrated the Lienix cult and have obtained the secret translator
> module.

Hey, if you want to be the big expert around here, surely a bit of
"technobabble" will not scare you, will it, /flatfish?/

Besides, your claim about /iptables/ is also a major screw-up. You see,
the GNU/Linux operating system doesn't need a firewall, because the
kernel *is* a firewall _and_ a router. /iptables/ is nothing more than
a set of scripts to configure it.

The only secret translator module needed here is called "a brain". I
suggest you grow one and stop your pathetic drive to lie and troll
which has to make up for your incompetence.

--
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

Roy L. Fuchs

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 5:05:16 PM1/5/06

to

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 13:21:50 -0800, "Roy L. Fuchs"
<royl...@urfargingicehole.arg> Gave us:

>?? What is "Outhouse Express"? Are you confused, or trying to be cute
>somehow?
>

Outhouse Express is what you are using to forge posts in my with.

from your headers:

Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670

It stinks like the outhouse that it is... just like you do.

Roy L. Fuchs

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 5:06:17 PM1/5/06

to

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 21:30:02 +0000, Gordon
<gor...@localhost.localdomain> Gave us:

>
>The crappy "email and news reading" client that doesn't post or quote
>properly unless in true MS fashion, the user has to download and install
>OE-Quotefix from an independent software writer to correct all the faults
>in it.

Please do not respond to the forger's trolls.

Roy L. Fuchs

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 5:10:46 PM1/5/06

to

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 21:30:02 +0000, Gordon
<gor...@localhost.localdomain> Gave us:

>The crappy "email and news reading" client that doesn't post or quote
>properly unless in true MS fashion, the user has to download and install
>OE-Quotefix from an independent software writer to correct all the faults
>in it.

He is an ass.

The post forger is "diogones"

here:

ECOWS06MyleCm...@smtp-out6.blueyonder.co.uk

the same ID from both posts from him, as well as those he forged in my
name, except for the "dot arg" he places at the end. That won't help
him get out of it, however.

I'd bet that blue yonder would be interested in his less than civil
behavior.

Gordon

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 5:13:46 PM1/5/06

to

So please enlighten me - what difference is there between a genuine troll
and a "forged" troll?

Dom

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 5:16:46 PM1/5/06

to

>>>The uneducated are not worthy of any consideration at all.

>>The above constitutes a very serious reasoning error.

> Not in a semi-technical newsgroup as this, no.

Paradigm is irrelevant. It is a reasoning error for two reasons.

* Based on aforementioned criteria, you are not qualified to make such a
designation.

* Regardless of status, anyone may arrive at a correct conclusion.

Roy L. Fuchs

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 5:18:19 PM1/5/06

to

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 13:50:29 -0800, "Diogenes" <diog...@sinope.gr>
Gave us:

>
>If you're talking about Outlook Express, it is by far the BEST newsreader
>available. Try it, you'll like it!

You're an idiot.

AZ Nomad

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 5:19:19 PM1/5/06

to

You're joking. No other explaination.

OE is crap. Even after nearly ten years, its filtering capabilities
lack the features of most 1.x releases of other newsreaders.

Tony

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 5:22:21 PM1/5/06

to

Gordon wrote:

You forgot that it comes with the free VRE 1.0.. (Virus Replication
Engine)

Dom

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 5:30:20 PM1/5/06

to

> OE is crap. Its filtering capabilities lack the features...

That is only a consideration if you employ filtering. There is one thing
that I like about Outlook Express that I have not seen reproduced in any
other newsreader: Top-level alerts for watched threads. In Outlook
Express, this takes the form of a highlighted newsgroup name.

AZ Nomad

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 5:42:16 PM1/5/06

to

The only time filtering is not a consideration is if you never read
public newsgroups.

Or don't know any better.

Diogenes

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 6:53:04 PM1/5/06

to

It's pretty well established that YOU use it too, so you must like it,
idiot.

Roy L. Fuchs

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 6:55:06 PM1/5/06

to

Gordon wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 22:06:17 +0000, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 21:30:02 +0000, Gordon
>> <gor...@localhost.localdomain> Gave us:
>>
>>>
>>> The crappy "email and news reading" client that doesn't post or
>>> quote properly unless in true MS fashion, the user has to download
>>> and install OE-Quotefix from an independent software writer to
>>> correct all the faults in it.
>>
>>
>> Please do not respond to the forger's trolls.
>
> So please enlighten me - what difference is there between a genuine
> troll and a "forged" troll?

Get fucked. I don't have to explain anything to you, just do what I tell
you!

Roy L. Fuchs

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 6:54:09 PM1/5/06

to

Filtering is for fucking pussies like you.

Haddad ibn Hasib Jad

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 6:57:47 PM1/5/06

to

Diogenes, <diog...@sinope.gr>, the maladjustive, fourpenny zombie, and
gaoler, churred:

Of course he does, it's in his headers, see?

Rebecca

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 7:04:35 PM1/5/06

to

Uh, IDIOT... go look at the OP, you'll find that in his/her post too. As
well as several others.

So I guess that proves that all of these posters are really the same person,
huh?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Classic: linux makes you stupid.

Roy L. Fuchs

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 7:15:19 PM1/5/06

to

I switch.

Roy L. Fuchs

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 8:59:17 PM1/5/06

to

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 22:13:46 +0000, Gordon
<gor...@localhost.localdomain> Gave us:

>So please enlighten me - what difference is there between a genuine troll
>and a "forged" troll?

OK. Please fuck off and die, asswipe.

Sinister Midget

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 9:04:17 PM1/5/06

to

On 2006-01-05, AZ Nomad <azn...@PmunOgeBOX.com> posted something concerning:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 13:02:10 -0600, Clack Boondocks Glover <clack...@example.c0m> wrote:
>
>
>>Gordon wrote:
>>>
>>> I've run Ubuntu 5.10 on
>>> always-on broadband with no firewall or AV for 6 months and got
>>> NOTHING - do you hear, NOTHING.
>
>
>>You're a lying fuck, Gordie.

>
>>Ubuntu uses iptables by default, so your claim of "no firewall" is a lie.
>

>>Kindly FOAD, taking your fellow advocates with you.
>
>
> Moron. He was obviously refering to the use of an external firewall.

It also assumes iptables was left installed and/or turned on.
Karpetmuncha Man can't fathom that, unlike Windwoes, you can turn
services off in linux and they stay off.

--
Bozori: Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.

Roy L. Fuchs

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 9:04:30 PM1/5/06

to

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 15:53:04 -0800, "Diogenes" <diog...@sinope.gr>
Gave us:

>Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 13:50:29 -0800, "Diogenes" <diog...@sinope.gr>
>> Gave us:
>>
>>>
>>> If you're talking about Outlook Express, it is by far the BEST
>>> newsreader available. Try it, you'll like it!
>>
>> You're an idiot.
>
>It's pretty well established that YOU use it too, so you must like it,
>idiot.
>

Sorry, dipshit. I do not use OE. Nice try though. You seem to
always claim something has been "established" when it has not. The
only thing that your behavior DOES establish is that you are a
certified loon.

Nice attempts at forgery though.

Roy L. Fuchs

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 9:07:12 PM1/5/06

to

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 16:15:19 -0800, "Roy L. Fuchs"
<royl...@urfargingicehole.arg> Gave us:

>I switch.
>
There is not a doubt in my mind, post forger, that you are a switch
hitter.

Roy L. Fuchs

unread,

Jan 5, 2006, 9:09:16 PM1/5/06

to

Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 15:53:04 -0800, "Diogenes" <diog...@sinope.gr>
> Gave us:
>
>> Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 13:50:29 -0800, "Diogenes" <diog...@sinope.gr>
>>> Gave us:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you're talking about Outlook Express, it is by far the BEST
>>>> newsreader available. Try it, you'll like it!
>>>
>>> You're an idiot.
>>
>> It's pretty well established that YOU use it too, so you must like
>> it, idiot.
>>
> Sorry, dipshit. I do not use OE. Nice try though. You seem to
> always claim something has been "established" when it has not. The
> only thing that your behavior DOES establish is that you are a
> certified loon.
>
> Nice attempts at forgery though.

Nice try dipshit. No one is going to believe you, you winturd.

Gordon

unread,

Jan 6, 2006, 3:31:13 AM1/6/06

to

Gotcha. So there's NO difference between a "genuine" troll and a forged
troll. Now YOU fuck off and die.

Roy L. Fuchs

unread,

Jan 6, 2006, 5:42:59 AM1/6/06

to

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:31:13 +0000, Gordon
<gor...@localhost.localdomain> Gave us:

>On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 01:59:17 +0000, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 22:13:46 +0000, Gordon
>> <gor...@localhost.localdomain> Gave us:
>>
>>>So please enlighten me - what difference is there between a genuine troll
>>>and a "forged" troll?
>>
>>
>> OK. Please fuck off and die, asswipe.
>
>Gotcha. So there's NO difference between a "genuine" troll and a forged
>troll. Now YOU fuck off and die.

There is apparently no difference between gang boy, mosh pit, pants
down past the ass idiot like you and your post forging asswipe buddies
either, idiot.

Gordon

unread,

Jan 6, 2006, 6:10:05 AM1/6/06

to

Oooooh! We did get out of the wrong side of your boyfriends bed this
morning, didn't we?

AZ Nomad

unread,

Jan 6, 2006, 8:45:22 AM1/6/06

to

The moron was also *really reaching*. Windows infects in a matter of seconds
and all he can say is "you have iptables!". Moron can't understand that the
reason windows infects in seconds has is because of the myriad security holes.

Sander Bertsimas

unread,

Jan 6, 2006, 8:59:35 AM1/6/06

to

AZ Nomad, <azn...@PmunOgeBOX.com>, the nephritic, cross-eyed spleenwort,
and employee responsible for removing stones from the fields before
planting, sighed:

English, you relative of a turd... Sprechts du?

Malware Magnet

unread,

Jan 6, 2006, 9:55:13 AM1/6/06

to

On 2006-01-05, the ass-clown known as Linux Freeloading Advocate wrote:
> .. Stem from the unforgivable incompetents in the administering of open
> source, as well as the labor intensity caused by such a mish-mash of
> flavours' and built-in vulnerabilities.
>
> It's no wonder linux needs firewalls, AV's, and anything else bundled with
> it to stave off the penetration of its weaknesses.
>
> Even Novell admit as much. I think they are beginning to regret their
> decision.
>
> http://www.novell.com/linux/security/securitysupport.html
>
> http://www.linuxsecurity.com/
>
> Pick the bones out of that lot!
>

LOL! From the URLs you cite:
<quotes>

"We were approached by Forrester in February 2004 to help them refine their
raw data. Forrester collected data about the vulnerabilities that affected
Linux during a one year period and looked at how many days it took us to
provide fixes to our users. Significant efforts have been put in not only
making sure that the underlying dataset for the Linux vulnerabilities was
correct, but also to articulate the special technical and organizational
care taken in the response processes in the professional Open Source
security field. This expertise is greatly appreciated by our usership since
it adds a high value to our products, but we see that most of this value has
been ignored in the methods used for the analysis of the vulnerability data,
leading to erroneous conclusions."

"Even though the Forrester report claims so, it does not make that
distinction when it measures the time elapsed between the public knowledge
of a security flaw and the availiability of a vendor's fix."

</quotes>

You are such a drop-jawed, wagtail fuckwit that you misinterpreted the
title. Obviously, you didn't bother to read your own references.

Thank you for providing excellent references as to why the Forrester report
regarding Linux vulnerabilities is as worthless as the "Get the Lies"
propaganda spewing out of Redmond.

Please stick around - you're a tremendous benefit to the Open Source community.

--
Back from the restroom? Better scan your Windows system.

AZ Nomad

unread,

Jan 6, 2006, 10:26:56 AM1/6/06

to

hi flatty

Linux Freeloading Advocate

unread,

Jan 6, 2006, 11:08:07 AM1/6/06

to

Malware Magnet malwa...@windows.os, wrote in message
lrndrt16h.gt...@localhost.localdomain:

LMFARO

Glad to see you can still get hooked on misinterpreting a report dating back
as far as 2004. You've been had, boi.

Don't lose grip now, whatever you do, or you'll be going over the edge with
the rest of them.

--
Please remove GLOCK ME NOW to SPAM me.

Malware Magnet

unread,

Jan 6, 2006, 11:24:11 AM1/6/06

to

On 2006-01-06, the troll who stikes fear in the hearts of all sheep,

Said the fuckwit who cited reports proving his idiocy. I would suggest
you more thoroughly research your sources, but you are a wintroll
who, like most, is grasping at straws. Credible sources are not in your
repertoire.

Please post another. As I said, you're a tremendous benefit to our
community.

And remember... we're laughing *with* you...
LOL!

Linux Freeloading Advocate

unread,

Jan 6, 2006, 11:44:18 AM1/6/06

to

Malware Magnet malwa...@windows.os, wrote in message

lrndrt6db.i8...@localhost.localdomain:

I don't need to do anything thoroughly, I leave that for you. You forget
that. You though, do need to be more aware of what you are responding to,
like a 2004 report ROFL

How stupid must you be to want to argue over, and defend, a report that
dates back to 2004, you prized twit.

PMSL AT you, you complete nong.

> but you are a wintroll
> who, like most, is grasping at straws.

I smell your uncertainty, my sextoi.

> Credible sources are not in
> your repertoire.

Post one of them then.

> Please post another. As I said, you're a tremendous benefit to our
> community.

By showing you up to be a complete wanker you mean? In that case I'm very
happy to do so.

> And remember... we're laughing *with* you...
> LOL!

With me huh? Didn't you mean, 'at' me? You complete know nothing nutter
<snort>

Go on, shitstick, repeat your exhausted one-liners here [ ]

Ku Karlovsky

unread,

Jan 6, 2006, 9:21:51 PM1/6/06

to

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 16:30:20 -0600, Dom <inv...@invalid.invalid>

wrote in message
<<43bd9e21$0$79543$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>>:

> > OE is crap. Its filtering capabilities lack the features...
>
> That is only a consideration if you employ filtering. There is one thing
> that I like about Outlook Express that I have not seen reproduced in any
> other newsreader: Top-level alerts for watched threads.

OE is crap. ProNews/2 had "top-level alerts" for watched threads and
replies to one's own posts years before Microsoft innovated this
feature into OE.

Kelsey Bjarnason

unread,

Jan 7, 2006, 7:30:03 PM1/7/06

to

Gordon wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:42:39 -0500, Linux Exposer wrote:
>
>
>> It's like taking candee from a baby.
>
> And I suppose "candee" is some colonialism?
>

Actually, it's the local stripper. 48-DD, which explains why taking it from
a baby is such a chore. :)

Kelsey Bjarnason

unread,

Jan 7, 2006, 7:30:04 PM1/7/06

to

[snips]

Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>>> Idiot, I don't use Windows. I use Suse. You're still stupid though.
>>
>> Well, when was Outhouse Express ported to Linux then?
>
> ?? What is "Outhouse Express"? Are you confused, or trying to be cute
> somehow?

From the post you made, to which I'm responding:

X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670

Kind of odd headers for a SuSE-based news client.

Kelsey Bjarnason

unread,

Jan 7, 2006, 7:30:04 PM1/7/06

to

[snips]

Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

>>> It's pretty well established that YOU use it too, so you must like
>>> it, idiot.
>>
>> Of course he does, it's in his headers, see?
>
> I switch.

Don't bother, you'd make a lousy top.

Lev Sackmann

unread,

Jan 7, 2006, 7:36:12 PM1/7/06

to

Kelsey Bjarnason, <kbjar...@gmail.com>, the grouchy, sticking out
undertaker, and oxherder, scrawled:

So, to you, doing a Garry Glitter is giving it to a kid up the shitter, eh,
you fucking low life paedophile linuxfuck cunt, is it?

Message has been deleted

Peter Köhlmann

unread,

Jan 7, 2006, 7:50:39 PM1/7/06

to

The racist, liar and software thief organ.creep (flatfish) nymshifted:

< snip flatfish droppings >

You lately nymshifted to

Abbie Diaz, Aftab Singh, Allen Cusimano, Allison Juergans, allison_hunt1969,
Anna Banger, anonymous, Archie, Archie Moss Bunker, Archie Watermann, Baba
Booey, Babu Singh, Bill Thomson, bill.gates.loves.me, bison, Bjarne Jensen,
BklynBoy, bonobo magilla, Boyce Mabri, Buster, Charles LeGrand, Charlie,
Choppers McGee, Chris Thomas, Christine Abernathy, Claire Lynn, Clippy,
Collie Entragion, Colon Singh, common cold, Connie Hines, Corrie, Corrie
Titlaand, Curtis Wilson, dbx_boy, Deadpenguin, Debbie, Devon Dawson,
dismoqualifetch, Donn Carlsbad, Dr.Long John Jones, Elliot Zimmermann,
Elwin Winters, Emmanuel Arias, Fawn Lebowitz, flatfish+++, foamy, frank
boson, Franz Klammer, Fred Simmons, gabriele howorth, Gary Stewart,
GayClod, George Cotton, George Littlefield, Gilbert, Gilbert Hochaim,
gilligan, Greg Finnigan, Greg Laplante, Hans Kimm, Harry Hilton, Harvey
Fogel, Heather, Heather69, Heather Trax, Heddy Seafield, hepcat, Hugh
Himless, Ishmeal Hafizi, itchy balls, Ivan Mctavish, IvanaB, Jeff Szarka,
Joe Josephson, John, John Shelton, Jorge Jorgensen, Jose Lopez, juke_joint,
kaptain kaput, Karel Olish, Karla Snodgress, kathy_krantz, Kendra, Kenny
Dugan, Kent Dorfman, Kyle Cadet, L Didio, Laura Shillingford, Le Farter, Le
Yammy, Les Turner, Leslie Bassman, Lilly, Lindy, Linux Exposer, Lisa
Shavas, Lisa Cottmann, Lois Hunt, Long, long_tong_ling, Lukumi Babalu Aye,
Luna Lane, Major Mynor, Manny, McSwain, Mogumbo, Moses, Mooshoo Bong Singh,
narrows_...@yahoo.com, nate_mcspook, okto_pussy, organ.creep, OSS KDE
User, Paddy McCrockett, Patricia, Patty Poppins, Peter Gluckman, Peter
Kohlmann, Phil, Phillip Cornwall, phoung, phoung quoak, pickle_pete, Piss
Clam, Poopy Pants McGee, Quimby, Quinton Magee, Quizno Backer, Rich,
Richard P. Johnson, Richie, Richie O'Toole, Robert Strunk, rothstein_ivan,
Sally Vadi, Sammy, Sammy Whalen, Saul Goldblatt, Schlomo Smykowski, Sharon
Cackle, Sharon Hubbasland, Sean, Sean Fitzhenry, Sean Macpherson, Sewer
Rat, sewer_clown, Sherlock Holmes , Simon, sista sledgehammer,
slacker.mcspritze, Spammy_Davis, spanny_davis, Stephan Simonsen, Stephanie
Mannerz, Stephen, Stephen Olsen, Stephen Townshend, SuckyB, SunnyB, Susan
Bladder, Susan Lapinski, Susan Wong, Suzie Wong, Swampee, Ted Bennington,
Terri Sorensen, The Beaver, Thorsten, Timmy Luncford , Toby Rastus
Roosovelt III, Tomas Bicsak, Tomas Lucatorto, Tori, Tori Wassermann, Torre
Stanslaand, Trace Dennison, Tracee, Traci, trailerpark, Trina Swallows,
Trolly, Trudi Simpkins, Tryxie Lustern, Uday Shankar, Vince Fontain,
Vladimir Yepifano, Walter Bubniak, Wang Mycock, Wasser, Wendy Duzz,
Whizzer, Wilbur J, Willy Wong, Winnie Septos, Wobbles, Yanick Schmuley and
zyklon_C.
Plus many, many, many more.
--
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats
you with experience...

Huzingatia Yaliyoamriwa

unread,

Jan 7, 2006, 7:54:07 PM1/7/06

to

Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:

> I think I've lost my mind. Please watch where you step!

Message has been deleted

Yehuda Chentow

unread,

Jan 7, 2006, 7:59:56 PM1/7/06

to

organ.creep, <organ.cree...@yahoo.com>, the mingy, rotund cheese,
and girdle wearer, barked:

> Well I didn't even know what Linux was until it started showing up in
> alt,home.repair a few days ago.

Don't worry, it won't be held against you, nor will you be forced to become
stupid by it.

The linux slogan is 'linux makes you stupid, and gay' or variations on a
theme.

> Seems like a lot of buggery goes on in the Linux groups.
> I was wondering if the Linux groups were just some kind of cover to
> avoid the FBI going after them for being pedophiles?
> Honestly, who has ever even heard of Linux?

0.02% of the entire world population, apparently. And that's a FACT.

linuxfux are pedophile gays and that is why they go after your arse.

I'm a Jew fuck so don't eat that sort of meat.

--
Oy ve! How Do I Tell My Family that I Believe in Yeshua?

Kelsey Bjarnason

unread,

Jan 8, 2006, 7:30:05 AM1/8/06

to

Lev Sackmann wrote:

Another flatfish nym? Perhaps, perhaps not, but showing all the mental
acumen of the prototype.

>>> And I suppose "candee" is some colonialism?
>>>
>>
>> Actually, it's the local stripper. 48-DD, which explains why taking
>> it from a baby is such a chore. :)
>
> So, to you, doing a Garry Glitter is giving it to a kid up the shitter,

How the hell do you go from tits to shitter? are you really that lacking in
experience you can't even tell the major components of the female form
apart?

You're making DFS look smart by comparison.

Peter Köhlmann

unread,

Jan 8, 2006, 7:39:18 AM1/8/06

to

begin virus.txt.scr Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

> Lev Sackmann wrote:
>
> Another flatfish nym? Perhaps, perhaps not, but showing all the mental
> acumen of the prototype.
>

More probably a Kadaitcha felcher

>>>> And I suppose "candee" is some colonialism?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, it's the local stripper. 48-DD, which explains why taking
>>> it from a baby is such a chore. :)
>>
>> So, to you, doing a Garry Glitter is giving it to a kid up the shitter,
>
> How the hell do you go from tits to shitter? are you really that lacking
> in experience you can't even tell the major components of the female form
> apart?
>
> You're making DFS look smart by comparison.

DFS *is* smart in comparison. A retarded brick as well
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means,
do not use a hammer. <from an IBM-Manual>

Gloria Vixentart

unread,

Jan 8, 2006, 6:59:25 PM1/8/06

to

Kelsey Bjarnason kbjar...@gmail.com, wrote in message
sc793-...@spanky.localhost.net:

Cunts are cunts. Want one? Insert your single brain cell here > [ ]

> You're making DFS look smart by comparison.

I just love it when intelligent men make themselves look stupid by thinking
they're being smart. Do you know what I mean?

You don't also masquerade as GreyCloud, do you? It's just that I see
similarities in the two of your posts.

--
Marsey dotes
And dosey dotes
Akiddley tivey too.
Wooden ewe?

Mares eat oats
And does eat oats,
And little lambs eat ivy.
A Kid will eat ivy too,
Wouldn't you?

Kelsey Bjarnason

unread,

Jan 9, 2006, 7:00:07 AM1/9/06

to

[snips]

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 13:39:18 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>> Another flatfish nym? Perhaps, perhaps not, but showing all the mental
>> acumen of the prototype.
>>
>
> More probably a Kadaitcha felcher

Could be - frankly, nowadays they're nearly indistinguishable. Worse,
they don't have a personality between 'em; they could, on the whole, be
replaced by a poorly-written script with a smallish dictionary of terms
relating to bodily functions.

Peter Köhlmann

unread,

Jan 9, 2006, 8:25:52 AM1/9/06

to

begin virus.txt.scr Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

Well, that about sums their collective brain functions quite nice
--
If you're right 90% of the time, why quibble about the remaining 3%?

Sulaiman ibn Zafarani al-Kindi

unread,

Jan 9, 2006, 8:29:51 AM1/9/06

to

Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:

> I'd like to autograph your bed pan.

Jim Richardson

unread,

Jan 9, 2006, 10:31:14 AM1/9/06

to

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

might make an interesting twist on the turing test... write as short a
possible perl script that replicates the behaviour of k'man or
flatfish...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDwoHCd90bcYOAWPYRAjv7AKDJt1t/91+7VG219Jaz7nCPE+wynwCeI0KN
rYam2/kZx0eObRMkYwcrVxA=
=Zeh0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Televangelists: The Pro Wrestlers of Religion

Larry Qualig

unread,

Feb 2, 2006, 2:28:35 PM2/2/06

to

rex.b...@gmail.com wrote:

> Linux Freeloading Advocate wrote:
> > It's no wonder linux needs firewalls,
>

> Windows needed external firewalls, because with FAT32, there is NO
> security.
> A default configuration of Windows often has a guest account, users log
> in as administrators, and all directories are available to all users
> for all functions (read, write, execute).
>
> When Windows 95 came out, it was comical to see subordinates "hacking"
> into their boss's computers by simply hitting "cancel" when prompted
> for a login and opening a share. The ONLY way to keep data secure, was
> to take it with you, and keep the building locked and guarded.
>
> When cable modems and DSL was first deployed, windows users could
> access the "shares" of their next door neighbors - including $C.
>
> Most corporations use UNIX based firewalls - or Linux based firewalls -
> for security. This includes firewall/routers like CISCO, Nortel, and
> Nokia.
>
> Most home users get a Linux powered router - from Netgear, Linksys,
> DLink, or Belkin.
>
> Many have cable modems or DSL modems based on Linux or Unix - from
> Motorola.
>
> You only THINK you don't use Linux or Unix. If you didn't have Linux
> and Unix, Windows would be instantly flooded with every imaginable form
> of malware - because there would be nothing to keep the PCs from
> sharing their files with each other's viruses - and reaching "critical
> mass".

>
> > AV's, and anything else bundled with
> > it to stave off the penetration of its weaknesses.
>

> Antiviruses are sold separately as well - for good reason. Microsoft
> had an antivirus product, but it was very selective about which viruses
> it didn't want to catch and remove.
> Eventually, hackers figured out the back door, and Windows machines not
> protected with Norton or some third party AV had to be reimaged.
>
> Today, there are many "experts" who are telling their readers and
> clients that the best way to handle a computer that has been infested
> with Malware - is to replace it - (and convert the now useless PC to
> Linux). Many people seem to be taking this advice, but many are now
> just picking PCs that will run Linux well - because they have grown to
> LIKE Linux.

>
> > Even Novell admit as much. I think they are beginning to regret their
> > decision.
> >
> > http://www.novell.com/linux/security/securitysupport.html
>

> Read the article cited:
> http://www.novell.com/linux/security/forrester.html
>
> It very clearly points out that the author of the article "Linux more
> Secure than Windows?", who claimed that Windows was more secure than
> Linux because Linux had more "buffer overrun errors" - most of which
> were protected by layers of defensive code designed to prevent the
> actual overrun from happening.
>
> <quote>
> GNU/Linux vendors Debian, Mandrake, Red Hat, and SUSE have joined
> together to give a common statement about the Forrester report entitled
> "Is Linux more Secure than Windows?". Despite the report's claim to
> incorporate a qualitative assessment of vendor reactions to serious
> vulnerabilities, it treats all vulnerabilities as equal, regardless of
> their risk to users. As a result, the conclusions drawn by Forrester
> have extremely limited real-world value for customers assessing the
> practical issue of how quickly serious vulnerabilities get fixed.
> </quote>
>
> Microsoft has been trotting these out because so many of their known
> vulnerabilities are protected by nondisclosure agreements which have
> been enforced with gag orders, including seizure of equipment and
> prosecution of publishers.
>
> Microsoft once touted that Windows NT had C2 security, of course, the
> configuration described in their certification document was practically
> useless, required significant reconfiguration, and would be useless in
> a corporate or military environment.
>
> It is possible to make Windows far more secure that it is when it comes
> out of the box, but Microsoft has a very highly vested interest in NOT
> having those security changes made, because it kills some of Bill's
> favorite "features" - like having Microsoft as a Trusted CA, having
> Microsoft capture "customer support" information - like what software
> you are running, serial numbers of processors, hard drives, and lan
> cards. Like Passport - which gives Microsoft access to all of your
> credit card and financial information.
>
> And some people think that all of this vulnerability is a "good thing"
> - it helps identify pedophiles, drug pushers, terrorists, and even
> liberals - without having to bother about minor details like search
> warrants.
>
> Of course, that means the rest of us have to deal with spyware that
> sends personal information to pretty much anybody who wants it (and
> pays NOT to be blown away by the antivirus software) and viruses that
> steal credit card information (though ironically, most indentity theft
> is actually "low tech" - dumpster diving for receipts and bills.
>
> > http://www.linuxsecurity.com/
>
> I find it amusing that the NSA has actually complained that Linux is
> TOO secure, yet Microsoft is claiming that Windows is more secure.
> Again - in some - really impractical - configurations - Windows could
> be made as secure as a typical Linux system.
>
> Disable ActiveX controls completely.
> Disable Signed Java Applets completely.
> Disable HTML previewing completely.
> Disable all scripting completely.
> Disable attachments completely.
> Disable all ports not otherwise used - using an external (*nix)
> firewall.
> Disable incoming connections completely.
> Disable all servers and services (with a few exceptions).
> Disable Netbios, NetBeui, and file sharing (client AND server).
> Set all home permissions to "read by owner" only.
>
> create c:/<user> directories (nothing shared) and place all personal
> files in that directory.
> set all permissions in those files to "owner only".
> disable write on all DLLs, EXEs, and other executables, and the
> directories that contain them.
>
> Create user IDs that restrict the user completely - and only give those
> restricted IDs to your users. No users can administer their own
> machines.
>
> And IF you are not fired because no one is getting any work done, and
> everyone who cares quits because they can't do their jobs - you'll end
> up with lots of people who just want to play "solitaire" all day.
> Security problem solved.

>
> > Please remove GLOCK ME NOW to SPAM me.

> Most home users get a Linux powered router - from Netgear,
> Linksys, DLink, or Belkin.

> You only THINK you don't use Linux or Unix.

FYI... Linksys use to use Linux in their routers. I very recently
bought a Linksys WRT54G wireless router (their most popular model) and
the newest models (v5) dropped Linux and now use VxWorks for the
routers internal OS.

Linønut

unread,

Feb 2, 2006, 5:27:40 PM2/2/06

to

After takin' a swig o' grog, Larry Qualig belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> FYI... Linksys use to use Linux in their routers. I very recently
> bought a Linksys WRT54G wireless router (their most popular model) and
> the newest models (v5) dropped Linux and now use VxWorks for the
> routers internal OS.

Interesting. But how do you know this?

Linux Journal has an article about the SlimDevices audio player, the
"SqueezeBox". It incorrectly calls it Linux-based; it is based on some
proprietary package I hadn't heard of before.

Anyway, why change from Linux? I'm thinking maybe it's RAM
requirements, or "better" dev toolset, or maybe even just some new
pointy-hair squirting his scent on the project. Any ideas or word from
LinkSys?

--
Wean yourself from the Microsoft teat!

Larry Qualig

unread,

Feb 2, 2006, 5:40:04 PM2/2/06

to

Linønut wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Larry Qualig belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > FYI... Linksys use to use Linux in their routers. I very recently
> > bought a Linksys WRT54G wireless router (their most popular model) and
> > the newest models (v5) dropped Linux and now use VxWorks for the
> > routers internal OS.
>

> Interesting. But how do you know this?

When I hooked up my router a few days ago I wanted to see if there was
any updated firmware for it. (Turns out it was already up to date.) But
the firmware page showed firmware for hardware versions v1, v2, v3, v4
and v5. Unfortunately the stupid Linksys site says nothing about how to
determine what hardware version I have.

So I used Google and the first site I found told me how to tell the
hardware revs (it's stamped into the bottom of the case) but also the
differences between versions.

>
> Linux Journal has an article about the SlimDevices audio player, the
> "SqueezeBox". It incorrectly calls it Linux-based; it is based on some
> proprietary package I hadn't heard of before.
>
> Anyway, why change from Linux? I'm thinking maybe it's RAM
> requirements, or "better" dev toolset, or maybe even just some new
> pointy-hair squirting his scent on the project. Any ideas or word from
> LinkSys?

No "official" reason but I read a good article that had a very
plausible theory. With the Linux based routers Linksys (Cisco) had to
release the source code. It doesn't take much searching to find all
sorts of hacked firmware for these routers.

Turns out that the many hacked firmware adds features that are
available in the more expensive routers. So it seems that people would
be the less expensive routers, get some good firmware and presto...
they now have a router that Linksys/Cisco normally charges much more
for. By switching to VxWorks they don't have to release the source code
and hacking the firmware is an order of magnitude more difficult.

Sounds believable to me. (fwiw... my router is v4 which is the last
version made with the Linux firmware).

Linønut

unread,

Feb 2, 2006, 7:18:21 PM2/2/06

to

After takin' a swig o' grog, Larry Qualig belched out this bit o' wisdom:

>> Anyway, why change from Linux? I'm thinking maybe it's RAM

>> requirements, or "better" dev toolset, or maybe even just some new
>> pointy-hair squirting his scent on the project. Any ideas or word from
>> LinkSys?
>

> Turns out that the many hacked firmware adds features that are
> available in the more expensive routers. So it seems that people would
> be the less expensive routers, get some good firmware and presto...
> they now have a router that Linksys/Cisco normally charges much more
> for. By switching to VxWorks they don't have to release the source code
> and hacking the firmware is an order of magnitude more difficult.

Interesting. But, wouldn't it still be simple to replace the VxWorks
firmware with the new firm ware?

I don't much about firmware, though. I guess the VxWorks OS would not
be erasable, and so the Linux firmware wouldn't be able to run. Or
maybe there's a small nonerasable stub?

Argh, I'm jess a po' ole apps programmuh!

Tim Smith

unread,

Feb 2, 2006, 9:55:50 PM2/2/06

to

In article <SJOdnT1zR-nQPH_e...@comcast.com>,

Linønut <linøn...@bone.com> wrote:
> Interesting. But, wouldn't it still be simple to replace the VxWorks
> firmware with the new firm ware?

They cut the RAM and the flash memory in half, too, which could be a
problem.

They did introduce the WRT54GL, which is basically version 4.0 of the
WRT54G, so people who want to hack firmware can get that.

There's a table of all the revisions here:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrt54g>

--
--Tim Smith

Tim Smith

unread,

Feb 2, 2006, 10:03:52 PM2/2/06

to

In article <1138920004.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,

"Larry Qualig" <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
> No "official" reason but I read a good article that had a very
> plausible theory. With the Linux based routers Linksys (Cisco) had to
> release the source code. It doesn't take much searching to find all
> sorts of hacked firmware for these routers.
>
> Turns out that the many hacked firmware adds features that are
> available in the more expensive routers. So it seems that people would
> be the less expensive routers, get some good firmware and presto...
> they now have a router that Linksys/Cisco normally charges much more
> for. By switching to VxWorks they don't have to release the source code
> and hacking the firmware is an order of magnitude more difficult.
>
> Sounds believable to me. (fwiw... my router is v4 which is the last
> version made with the Linux firmware).

That theory is pretty obviously bunk, as after they switched to VxWorks
for version 5, they introduced the WRT54GL, which is basically a renamed
WRT54G version 4. This serves no purpose in their product line except
to provide something for the people that want to hack Linux firmware.

--
--Tim Smith

Linønut

unread,

Feb 2, 2006, 10:49:00 PM2/2/06

to

After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> They cut the RAM and the flash memory in half, too, which could be a
> problem.
>
> They did introduce the WRT54GL, which is basically version 4.0 of the
> WRT54G, so people who want to hack firmware can get that.
>
> There's a table of all the revisions here:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrt54g>

Thanks!

--
Wean yourself from the Microsoft nipple!

tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com

unread,

Feb 3, 2006, 2:14:20 AM2/3/06

to

Larry Qualig <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
>
> FYI... Linksys use to use Linux in their routers. I very recently
> bought a Linksys WRT54G wireless router (their most popular model) and
> the newest models (v5) dropped Linux and now use VxWorks for the
> routers internal OS.

As I understand it, they switched to VxWorks instead of Linux
because the could then get away with half the RAM, saving on
hardware costs. They still sell the model that runs Linux; just
look for the version with a model number that ends with 'L'.
It is probably a bit more expensive because of the additional RAM,
but still cheap, and a good choice if you want to hack the
firmware and add features.

Cheers,

Thad

billwg

unread,

Feb 3, 2006, 10:28:56 AM2/3/06

to

"Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
news:SJOdnT1zR-nQPH_e...@comcast.com...

> After takin' a swig o' grog, Larry Qualig belched out this bit o'
> wisdom:
>
>>> Anyway, why change from Linux? I'm thinking maybe it's RAM
>>> requirements, or "better" dev toolset, or maybe even just some new
>>> pointy-hair squirting his scent on the project. Any ideas or word
>>> from
>>> LinkSys?
>>
>> Turns out that the many hacked firmware adds features that are
>> available in the more expensive routers. So it seems that people
>> would
>> be the less expensive routers, get some good firmware and presto...
>> they now have a router that Linksys/Cisco normally charges much more
>> for. By switching to VxWorks they don't have to release the source
>> code
>> and hacking the firmware is an order of magnitude more difficult.
>
> Interesting. But, wouldn't it still be simple to replace the VxWorks
> firmware with the new firm ware?
>

The old firmware won't run with the new hardware at all. This was the
response to the GPL pressure. Bill Gates had warned LinkSys about that
particular form of cancer, but LinkSys kept on smoking the linux weed,
thinking that it was free!

Tim Smith

unread,

Feb 3, 2006, 10:44:35 AM2/3/06

to

In article <YEKEf.7704$g47....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, billwg wrote:
> The old firmware won't run with the new hardware at all. This was the
> response to the GPL pressure. Bill Gates had warned LinkSys about that
> particular form of cancer, but LinkSys kept on smoking the linux weed,
> thinking that it was free!

...and right after that, they brought out the WRT54GL model, running Linux.
Oops, that blows your theory.

--
--Tim Smith

Ray Ingles

unread,

Feb 3, 2006, 10:51:01 AM2/3/06

to

On 2006-02-03, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Turns out that the many hacked firmware adds features that are
>>> available in the more expensive routers. So it seems that people would
>>> be the less expensive routers, get some good firmware and presto...
>>> they now have a router that Linksys/Cisco normally charges much more
>>> for. By switching to VxWorks they don't have to release the source code
>>> and hacking the firmware is an order of magnitude more difficult.
>>
>> Interesting. But, wouldn't it still be simple to replace the VxWorks
>> firmware with the new firm ware?
>>
> The old firmware won't run with the new hardware at all. This was the
> response to the GPL pressure.

No, the response was to split the product line. A *very* cheap one
running the newer firmware (and I've commented elsewhere that this seems
to have many technical issues), and the standard hardware suitable for
flashing with upgraded firmware.

They can charge a slight premium for the technical users who want the
increased flexibility, while shaving hardware costs for other users who
have simpler needs. Entirely sensible, and the GPL allows them to do so.

--
Sincerely,

Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317

"[T]he Founding Fathers... made certain to guarantee us individual
rights and freedoms. How dare we selfishly lay claim to those
liberties... when our nation is in crisis?"
http://www.theonion.com/opinion/index.php?issue=4026