From: John <spambegone@127.0.0.1>
Subject: Cool experiment today
msg: <9oyVb.16774$jH6.4539@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink .net>

"This afternoon I ran X Windows for Mac (Darwin) and was able to connect
to my Linux box with ease ..."

"Duh. .. Windows 95 and Windows 3.1 and vice versa .."
- Erik Funkenbusch

Duh .. DUH _*DUH*_ ?

Duh the FrankenTROLL is miffed you didn't mention WinCRASH.
You see praise of any other OS equates to implied criticism in the
mind(s) of microTROLLS.

"Just that nice little shuffle .."

The creator of the MICROS~1 shuffle accuses others of doing the shuffle

"You keep trying to create a gigantic strawman .."

A past master of the StrawMan accuses ....

"Linux is just a kernel .."

[*SNORT*]

begin <c0b4h5$15bvls$1@id-168140.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Daeron <daeron@demon.net> writes:
He's back in full flow. Two posts with links to articles showing that
Linux solutions give a lower TCO than Windows and he's off in full MS
apologist mode.

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

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:15:51 +0100,
Roy Culley <rgc@swissonline.ch> wrote:

And he *still* hasn't clarified his "linux can't boot from XFS" claim,
or his fuckup regarding the ext3 journal.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAKUT1d90bcYOAWPYRAismAKCyhk3stm8csO6ANbrjQx Y+f6KgXQCgvkYf
xnYtR6GZCZefQC77OlKYC+g=
=GFp0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
There are entirely too many dumbasses in this world who don't know they
are dumbasses. We have a duty to enlighten them.

Jim Richardson wrote:

And no evidence that Mutt, Pine and Netscape had "several" similar exploits
as OE.
Erik as usual ignores all threads where he has acutally stand to his
bullshit claims and eagerly opens new cans of worms.
--
Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh!

I was browsing the articles in the shop when, as if by magic, Peter Köhlmann
suddenly appeared, at Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:57:32 +0100 and said the following:
The idea that Mutt and Pine have any exploits at all, is laughable,
in the extreme. Netscape though, I wouldn't want to make too much
comment about, other than, if exploits do exist, then the
Win32 version would more than likely contain more exploits than the
linux/*nix ones.

--
Mark Gary
System Powered by Gentoo Linux 1.4
Registered Linux User #329755 - http://counter.li.org
email me at : uk.co.demon.mwgary.nospam@mark (reverse and remove nospam)

Mark Gary wrote:

The point is that Erik F claimed *each* of those had *several* exploits
similar to those we love so much in OE.
Then he failed to cough up even a single one for them, let alone "several".
Also noteable is his insistance that "several" means "2 or more". Yet he
failed to provide even those "two" for those apps. And personally I would
never describe just "two" as "several". But then Erik is he wrangler of the
meaning of words. They will mean whatever suits him best

Erik F will lie no matter what when he feels he must defend MS.
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
If it starts working, we'll fix it. Pronto.

Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Roy Culley mumbled this incantation:

Hell, the TCO of Linux is indisputable lower. For one thing, Linux is *easier*
to administer. Much easier. Any teenage kid with a little intelligence and
gumption will figure out how to do more than anyone taking an MSCE prep course.

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

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:58:39 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

The part you continue to avoid mentioning is the part where I offered to
prove you wrong, on the condition that you admit you're clueless about your
own platform if I did.

There is obviously no risk to you if you believed you were right, yet you
refuse this simple challenge.

BTW, I didn't use the word "exploit", now did I?

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

What you did was claiming some bullshit (as usual). When called you put some
additional restrictions on it, like I agree to some idiotic notion to do
some even dumber stuff, and *then* you will disclose your sources.

Does not work that way, Erik. You claim something, you give evidence. Simple
as that.
Problem is, you just lied. As usual. And then wanted to hide that fact.
--
Never put off till tomorrow what you can avoid all together.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:36:52 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

No, I stated facts that are easily found with a search engine.

I said that if you were so certain I was wrong, then you should have no
problem agreeing to admit you're clueless about your own platforms security
if I prove you wrong.

If you truly believe i'm wrong, then it's no risk to you, since if I can't
prove you wrong, you don't have to admit anything and can say whatever you
like about me.

On the other hand, if I prove you wrong, you have to eat crow, admit you're
clueless, and generally just STFU.

Since you refuse to accept this challenge, you must believe that I'm right,
otherwise you'd jump at the opportunity to prove me wrong. Your continuing
refusal to agree to this challeng only proves you're wrong.

I'm not hiding anything, and I'm merely waiting for you to agree to this
challenge. Agreeing isn't admission of anything, it's simply accepting
that you'll eat crow if proven wrong. Since you won't do that, we are left
to draw our own conclusions.

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

We have been through this several times already, Erik.
If you can prove me wrong, do it. And stop dancing around and putting some
idiotic condition on your disclosing the facts just to hide that there are
none

There never was a challenge. You claim that Mutt, Pine and Netscape...
You provide the evidence. Is that so hard to grasp?
I say you are a liar. Simply prove me wrong

Idiot
--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous

Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
You are turning the tables, Erik. You make a statement, you provide the
prove. Until then it is not a fact but a meaningless statement, but
those are common to your modus operandi so I am not suprised in the
least.

ROTFL! So by being proven wrong on:
- Linux cannot boot from jfs or xfs filesystems
- The average linux distro has half a dozen local root exploits a month
- It is a legal obligation to retain the OEM installed software with the
hardware that you resell or give away
you admit that you are clueless? I'll share a little secret with you. We
knew all along. :-)

Funny, you make objections when someone else makes statements about what
you think or believe. Yet you have no problems reading someone else's
mind.
Let me reiterate for you. A challenge to Peter is of absolutely no
significance. *You* made a statement, so *you* provide prove. Unless you
do, it is not fact but a meaningless statement as most of yours are.

HTH.

Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <vega@hamal.xs4all.nl> s/starname/polaris/
Giraffiti, n.:
Vandalism spray-painted very, very high.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:40:27 +0000 (UTC), Rob S. Wolfram wrote:

My statements were so ridiculously easy to verify with a quick google
search that it was preposterous that Peter refused to believe me. This
meant he was simply being an asshole and attempting to make me jump through
any hoop he deemed fit.

I wasn't going to jump through any hoops for him unless I got something out
of it as well, namely his admission that he has no clue about his own
platform.

Am I suppose to provide proof that the earth is round as well?

Hey, Linux isn't "my" OS. This is common security knowledge that ANYONE
using Linux should know about.

BTW, once again, as i've said and proven several times now, I never said
that it is a legal obligation to retain the OEM installed software with the
hardware. We've "discussed" this on numerous occasions, yet you keep
pretending I said something I did not.

One final time (even though we both know you'll continue to lie about what
I said). If you split the hardware from the OEM software, the owner that
takes ownership of the of hardware still receives the license for the
software. If you don't give it to him, he is unable to use it if he wants
to. Regardless of whether you give him the software, HE IS STILL LICENSED
TO USE IT, but cannot because you haven't given it to him.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm making a logical conclusion and explaining
how I came to that conclusion.

The statement should be obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity
with Linux security advisories. If it's not, you should seriously think
about reevaluating your competency.

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

If it really was so ridiculous easy, there weren't really any big hoops
And it still does not change the fact that you made claims *you* could not
back up. I will *never* do your homework, easy or not

Again, Erik, why should I hunt down alleged (by you, of any persons!) bugs
for programs I don't even have installed. Where am I clueless in that case?

No. Just to your ridiculous claims. Which you still are unable to back up
with facts. Where are the URLs for Pine and Netscape?

Why? Should I know the bugs of every possible program out there, even if I
never have any of those installed? For what purpose?

Quit lying, Erik. That was a rather lengthy thread, and you made those
claims

So you reiterate your stupid claims.

Your "logical" conclusions still try to read someones mind. They are wrong,
naturally.

Erik, you will *never* get me to do *your* homework. You will have to prove
*each* and every claim you make here. Otherwise I call you the liar you
are. Live with it. And just stop this silly game of laying the burden of
proof on someone else. It has not worked and never will
--
A fool-proof method for sculpting an elephant:
first, get a huge block of marble; then you chip
away everything that doesn't look like an elephant.

[snips]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:42:42 +0000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

"God exists" is, to many, a ridiculously obvious thing; hell, just look
around, trees, rocks, solar systems, people, gotta be a god, right? Yet
to others, it's not so obvious.

You want to make a claim, *you* get to back it up.

If you assert that it is as a factual statement and someone calls you on
it, then yes, be prepared to do so. Put it this way: if you can't, then
how do *you* know it's round? Because it's common knowledge? Common
knowledge also held that atoms were the smallest divisions of matter, that
earth, air, fire and water were the elements, etc.

Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
Half a dozen? Are you still claiming your number is correct? If so, can
you prove it or disprove my, quite different, numbers that I provided in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...0maia.hamal.nl ?

Also, have you withdrawn your statement about the inability of Linux to
boot from xfs or jfs filesystems?

I stand corrected. Indeed you did not say "legal obligation". You said
"legal requirement":
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...uti.visi. com
Now I repeat my question: do you admit being clueless since you have
been proven wrong that no such requirement exists?

There you go again, showing your cluelessness to the world. Read my
lips: NO, HE IS NOT LICENSED TO USE IT.
1. A licence *AGREEMENT* is between people and/or the judicial
equivalence thereof (like a company). The EULA is an agreement
between Microsoft and *ME*, not Microsoft and my computer.
2. The agreement can prevent me from using the software on any other
hardware, but it cannot restrict the use or sale of the hardware *IN
ANY WAY* since only the software is copyrighted and thus subject to
the license agreement. The hardware is my ownership and Microsoft
cannot make *ANY* claims whatsoever wrt the hardware.
3. The EULA itself has a clause that states that the EULA can be
transeferred to a third party *if and only if* certain provisions are
met. If these provisions are not met, the EULA *DOES NOT TRANSFER*.

I've told you all this before, using your own quote from the EULA:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...na.island.n l
Is English really that hard to understand?

Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <vega@hamal.xs4all.nl> s/starname/polaris/
Occam's eraser:
The philosophical principle that even the simplest
solution is bound to have something wrong with it.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:51:15 +0000 (UTC), Rob S. Wolfram wrote:

Why do you keep beating your head against the wall? We've been through
this dozens of times. What part of "guess" don't you repeatedly
understand?

Why is it that you simply cannot accept it when I say I'm wrong? You have
to keep pretending I didn't. You'll keep saying this again and again even
though you know damn well I already admitted it, because you responded to
my message in which I did.

Why don't you grow some balls and accept it when someone says they're
wrong? Or must you continue to be a little child?

Interesting. Upon rereading that statement, I see where you got that from.
It wasn't my intention to say it that way, rather that EULA's are legally
binding. I was commenting on the EULA not the "legal requirement that
pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the
machine".

But, if it makes you feel any better, the statement as written is wrong.
My other statements on the matter are pretty clear about my opinion on the
subject.

Yes, he is.

While that's true, it's irrelevant. What's your point?

Also true, and also irrelevant. I never said otherwise. Why do you insist
on pretending I say things that I don't?

Not exactly true. The license still transfers, but the user is not
authorized to use the software unless the terms are met, IE, you give him
the software with it and he accepts the terms. Regardless of whether you
give him the software or not, only the person that you sold the hardware to
can now legally use that software.

I could say the same thing of you.

[late reply]

Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
So if I take this at face value, a guess need not have any merit? Well,
I *guess* that all versions of Windows have a couple of hundred new
vulnerabilities a day that yield system priviledges for the attacker.
Sounds unreasonable? Yours does just the same. You were plain wrong and,
quite likely, intentionally so.

You admitted that you were partially wrong (i.e. only xfs and only with
lilo on the MBR). You never admitted being completely wrong about it,
unless I should read the above sentence as such. In the latter case, I
accept your admission that you were clueless wrt this subject.

That's funny, our whole beef was Microsoft's lie that this legal
requirement existed. You answer, literally, "The legal requirement is in
the EULA". Now you say you weren't commenting on the legal requirement?

Thank you for that one.

No he is not, see below.

It is very relevant. Together with the 2 next point this means that the
software and hardware are *NOT* a single integrated product. They
should only be considered as such when MY rights and limitations are
considered wrt the software, and only the software.

Your reply on the next point imply otherwise. If you state that the
license transfers, then Microsoft makes a claim on the hardware which is
owned by me, not by them.

No, it doesn't. There is NO implication, either in the EULA or in
Copyright law, to have the license transfer automatically. What exactly
were you claiming to be wrong about a few paragraphs earlier? You are
undoing it here again.

Answer this: if I sell only part of the hardware (e.g. hard disk,
monitor and video card), does the license transfer with those part or
does it stay with the motherboard and casing?

If the user is not authorized, there is no agreement, thus the EULA did
not transfer.

No, nobody can legally use the software. Both me *and* the buyer have to
pass strict conditions to have a valid, i.e. legal, transfer of the
license. Without those strict conditions, no license transfer ever takes
place, so your claim that such act implies fraud is a blatant lie
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...uti.visi. com

Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <vega@hamal.xs4all.nl> s/starname/polaris/
I'd say the probability of Windows containing a backdoor is about
the same a spreadsheet containing a flight simulator.
-- Phil Hunt <philh@vision25.demon.co.uk> in c.o.l.a

Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:

Later in that same thread, you wrote the following.

,----[ <%OWw8.48096$vm6.7525466@ruti.visi.com> ]
| The OEM EULA licenses the OS to the machine. The OS and it's manuals have
| to be transferred with the machine if you give it or sell it to anyone.
`----

If you didn't mean to claim that there was a legal requirement that
the OS remain with the machine, you are remarkably bad at expressing
yourself.

In this thread, you wrote:

,----[ <vo8pv18ha5bp.dlg@funkenbusch.com> ]
| BTW, once again, as i've said and proven several times now, I never said
| that it is a legal obligation to retain the OEM installed software with the
| hardware.
`----

This is just obviously bullshit.

--
Jesse Hughes
"My experience indicates that the people who post on this newsgroup
are about at the level of a 10 year old in the year 2060."
-- More wisdom from James Harris, time traveler

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:49:14 +0100, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

There is lost context there. I also said in that thread:

"To be clear, If you sell them a computer which was originally purchased
with a MS OEM'd OS and you do not give them the disks and manuals with it,
you are implicitly selling them something they cannot use (the OS, because
the license transfers with the computer)."

In the context of the entire discussion, you can see that my point was that
if you didn't inform them that it wouldn't come with the license that was
legally licensed to it, they wouldn't be able to use something they were
otherwise legally entitled to.

No, it's not. If you sell the hardware and tell the person you are selling
it to (prior to purchase) that you would not be giving them the software,
then there's nothing wrong. Failing to do this could very well be
considered fraudulent.