SCO v. IBM

Message ID: 376618 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Why are the Nuts all agog? If IBM's contract clearly states they can disclose methods and concepts to outside world, why are the Nuts fuming against Rochkind? IBM has the trump card, so why worry? IBM has something to hide! Big settlement is in the works!! This stock is going to teh moon!!! This Yahoo! SCOX Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution under the following license: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Message ID: 375211 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Nuts continue disinformation campaign The Nuts have been shown time and again, how protecting the system files on a single user PC gives no security benefits -- it only adds to convenience. Yet, they close their eyes and continue to act as though the root-user separation of Linux is the holy grail of security. Come to think of it, basic Linux is not even very good at separating root and user. Those setuid and setgid programs are a well-known security risk. You have to suffer something like SELinux if you really want to achieve some semblance of security (in true multi-user environments). Meanwhile, Linux programs continue to have a plethora of security patches on a regular basis. Linux users are just as "exposed" as Windows users. The Linux Lusers don't even have any mechanisms in place to check if their machine is compromised at user level or root level. How many of the idiots here are running some kind of file integrit

Message ID: 375130 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: The Primitive Lamex OS Boyle M Loser and other losers are flaunting Lamex use in appliances.  Appliances only need a primitive multi-tasking OS. Using Lamex in an appliance masks its numerous shortcomings - difficulty of installing new programs, difficulty of extending it to deal with new hardware, putting it to desktop use without getting the frequent urge to kill oneself etc. More over, it comes with no license fees. It is only natural that some people will take the bait. Similarly, on a server, when there is a trained monkey to absorb the pain, Lamex becomes tolerable despite its many problems.  So, cool it, Nuts. This Yahoo! SCOX Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution under the following license: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Message ID: 374910 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Linux, the joke http://www.greggman.com/edit/editheadlines/2002-05-08.htm This is written in 2002, but note that people were already telling the author "Linux is no longer hard to setup!" and "The Interface is now great!" etc. This is the Linux Nuts' version of "Truth". They fed this to the general public incessantly for a very long time, and lost *all* of their credibility as a result: "Well, either all those people are either blinded by their hate of Microsoft or they are playing a sick joke on the rest of us. "It's taken me about 4 days of about 4 to 6 hours a day to get this thing working." Two years later, a fine Linux Nut drops by, and says "Linux is super easy. You are an idiot." The author responds "Still a turd for me". There were the usual suggestions on changing "distros" and all that. You can read the gory details on the web page. The Linux

Message ID: 374563 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Linux security - a continuing joke http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7598 This is a 2003 article, but especially educational for the Nuts. "Unix was released in 1976 and has been used in servers for more than 20 years - BUT IT STILL GETS BUG REPORTS, sometimes down to the kernel. IBM security used to be pretty good until AIX came along, but look in CERT and there's now hundreds of reports about AIX. And Linux, son of Unix, is as bug-ridden as its parent." "Linux-Unix is as buggy as a kindergarten in winter, and not just in the applications. Just take a look in any security-tracking database and you'll find vulnerabilities everywhere, right down to the kernel or just as bad, the middleware that talks to the web." Notice how this guy is neutral and objective (just like I am). "Don't get me wrong; I am not a fan of Windows and Microsoft. I don't like their licensing policy; I don't really li

Message ID: 374309 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: More and more Linux frustration http://www.geofffox.com/MT/archives/2004/04/05/more_and_more_linux_frustration.php http://www.oreillynet.com/databases/blog/2004/02/linux_brings_frustration.html Just a couple more "satisfied" Linux Lusers. One of them even has a 8-year old son that hates Linux!  I know, I know, they must be just stupid. It's not Linux's fault.  Let the lies continue! We're almost there. It's only another 99% or so of desktop users that need to convert to Linux. This Yahoo! SCOX Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution under the following license: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Message ID: 374239 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: MS Windows - most extensible There has been some discussion over the weekend on this board about the flexibility of Linux. The Nuts are unduly proud of their ability to produce a Linux with a small footprint. The fact of the matter is, Windows can be made pretty small too. The source code is owned by Microsoft, so only Microsoft can do it, but it has been done. Linux is, of course, changeable -- the kernel itself can be changed. The real problem is that, to do many things, kernel *has* to be changed. You can find a kernel patch for many, many things. The problem with applying these patches is that, you will lose the ability to apply your distribution maker's patches (including security updates) after that. These are destructive changes. On the other hand, Microsoft Windows has proven its extensibility in the field for many years. You can go out and buy a piece of hardware, attach it to your PC, load its driver from a CD or from th

Message ID: 373520 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: The Barking Linux Mutts http://www.acmqueue.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=156 >>> At Berkeley I was on the Linux User Group board when a bunch of members organized a "proselytizing session" in Sproul Plaza. This was around the time that Windows 98 was launched, so the time was right to "stick it to the man." <<< It looks like it is a long time practice of Linux Nuts to intensify their propaganda just before a Windows release, all the way from before Windows 98 upto the current pre-Vista time. There is a saying in my mother tongue - "Dogs get excited when there is a marriage in town". (In case you are wondering, it is because there is a lot of discarded food!) The Nuts have trouble selling the Linux desktop to people on its merits, so they seem to be looking for disaffected Windows users. Each Windows release introduces changes, and just before a Windows release, th

Message ID: 373461 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Linux Affinity in AIX - for Biff Biff- what are your thoughts on the Linux Affinity thing in AIX that IBM was pushing at one time? Did SCO and IBM scheme (as part of project M) to move people off Linux to AIX and SCO's proprietary Unix? Did they have a fallout, and did IBM say 'screw you' to SCO and start helping Linux instead of trying to move people away from it? This Yahoo! SCOX Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution under the following license: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Message ID: 373147 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Disillusioned Linux Nut Paul Murphy says on zdnet: "Thus the bottom line is simple: if SCO survives long enough to make it in court, IBM will lose. " This is the same guy that was full of pointers on how to sneak Linux into your company, just the other day. Is this a sign that the Linux Nuts are finally waking up to reality? Who will it be next? PJ? This Yahoo! SCOX Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution under the following license: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Message ID: 372832 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Linux in vain http://www.lobby4linux.com/ The guy that runs this web site reminds me of freecode. The hyperbole, the melodramatic tone, the inflammatory language, the morbid hatred for Microsoft, and the transparent fear-mongering techniques - he could have been the Texas man's long lost twin. He seems to be producing copious material, telling everyone how Microsoft is going to screw them, and why everyone should switch to Linux at once. A while ago, this Helios was collecting cash to run advertisements for Linux. It is not clear what came out of that, but now he is collecting cash for some anti-DRM activities. In any case, the "distro" Helios had in mind for converting everybody to Linux is PCLinuxOS. I'm sure this PCLinuxOS is an excellent "distro" as Linux "distros" go, but the real problem is that there are far too many idiots in the Linux world, each pushing a different "distro". Ju

Message ID: 372618 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Wasting Time with Linux Spending any time on Linux in the hope that it will someday catch up on the desktop is a waste. Consider that two of the main supporters of Linux desktop - IBM and Novell - have had their asses handed to them by Microsoft in previous desktop battles. Yet another way of losing with Linux is documented on this web page. I've already mentioned the inexorable Linux upgrade cycle when it comes to drivers for new hardware. 'Brad' is talking about just application programs here. http://ideas.4brad.com/archives/000197.html I've already mentioned the inexorable Linux upgrade cycle when it comes to drivers for new hardware. 'Brad' is talking about just application programs here. "To get new software, you are often forced to upgrade, sometimes your whole OS. And that's free to do and often it works, but you can't depend on it. More than once I have lost a day of uptime to major upgrade

Message ID: 372252 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Hey, Ruid H Loser You are not being very consistent in your plonking. Lots of guys are replying to my posts, or are talking about things in my posts without being plonked. If you want to lose, atleast lose consistently, but if you ask me, you should rethink your whole strategy. If I don't post here, the Nuts start bickering among themselves with discussions about politics and other things. Everybody loses. My posts bring out the fervor in the Nuts. They come to life to defend their favorite religious beliefs against my attacks. My posts are both entertaining and educational. You guys ought to be paying me to post here - shall we say, 10 cents per word? This Yahoo! SCOX Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution under the following license: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Message ID: 372181 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Why the Linux Nuts are always lying In our continuing 'Teach That Nut' programme, we bring the following offering from SANS on Linux rootkits. http://www.sans.org/rr/whitepapers/linux/901.php The term rootkit came about because it refers to the compromise of Unix superuser root. The Linux Nuts can appreciate just how much effort is involved in ensuring that their Linux machine is not rooted, and in checking if it is. Hopefully, this will stop them from such glib lies as 'Linux is inherently secure' in the future. Hopefully, they will shut up about Windows security products, and start asking themselves why they are not running some of the programs mentioned in the paper. (BTW, the SANS paper says: "When a rootkit is installed, it overwrites many commands used on a daily basis such as ls, ps, or netstat. By overwriting such commands, the intrusion can be masked from the administrators." Now, who was that moron

Message ID: 371727 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: SE Linux Mythology The proponents of Linux security who argue that Linux is 'inherently secure' should be asked the question 'why do you have SE Linux then?' They will probably sidestep the issue and start talking about Windows problems instead, as Linux Nuts usually do when cornered. Denial, evasion, hyperbole, half-truths, lies, deception - a Linux Nut's repertoire is quite large. In any case, running SE Linux appears to be a major pain in the ass. http://www.networkworld.com/weblogs/nos/011721.html The Nuts that blurt out "SELinux" when defending the terrible Linux security should take note. This Yahoo! SCOX Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution under the following license: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Message ID: 371697 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: The ever-improving Microsoft http://windowsfordevices.com/news/NS9022042332.html Slashdot says "CE 6 looks to be a major rewrite, featuring the capability to support several orders of magnitude more concurrent processes and virtual memory. Also new is support for MS's .NET IDE. Together, these new capabilities seem calculated to morph CE from a closed-box, off-the-shelf OS into a more customizable OS." It's amazing that the software giant never stops getting better. Just as they have wiped out Linux's alleged advantages when they released Windows 2000 and XP, this move is aimed straight at Linux's strengths. Given enough time, they will probably put Linux out of business everywhere, including servers. This Yahoo! SCOX Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution under the following license: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Message ID: 371341 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: The Linux Denial Continues The Linux Nuts have put me on ignore to avoid hearing Linux criticism. They continue merrily with finding fault with Microsoft's software. The miniscule use of Linux desktop obscures its own terrible security problems. And, the toy Linux desktop put together with duct tape and chewing gum has been almost universally rejected by fair-minded people all over the world. You would think these guys will shut up and think about improving their own development methods and software, but no. These losers, who can't put together a desktop if their life depended on it, deign to tell the biggest software maker in the world how to do things! Just consider the irony. Linux has been in development for *15* years! What have they got to show for it? Other than the donated code, and the toy GUI, we have a basic multitasking multi-user operating system. Well, it took two guys 6 months in an attic to come up with the sam

Message ID: 371089 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Linux Desktop - Time To Give Up? Even the Linux supporters admit multimedia support in Linux is not great. But, forget multimedia. Can Linux do sound? Fred Langa tried to get several Linux distributions to recognize a sound card and failed. http://www.informationweek.com/windows/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=18901660&pgno=1&queryText= In Langa's words, "New Linux distros still fail a task that Windows 95 -- yes, 95! -- easily handles, namely working with mainstream sound cards." The Linux supporters, of course, reacted in poor grace, and called Langa a liar and an idiot. There is this pattern of sweeping problems under the rug in the Linux community. I don't see what the point is, though. You may cover up, and you may lie, and convince a few more people to try Linux desktop. But, when people actually try to use it, they come to know not only that it sucks, but that you lied to them! So, even if Linux gets all b

Message ID: 370972 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: To my silent supporters To the folks who are rec'ing the hell out of my posts, but are afraid to reply to them for fear of punishment by the mafia cult: there is a concerted effort to suppress deepdistrust and Truth on this forum, but don't worry - it can't be sustained for long. This Yahoo! SCOX Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution under the following license: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Message ID: 370826 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Linux Nuts All Out Of Material No posts in 12 hours! This Yahoo! SCOX Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution under the following license: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Message ID: 370637 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: The Denial of the Linux Loons The Linux Loons are most in denial about two things - Linux insecurity, Free Software Movement's adverse effect on the software industry. When pressed on the latter subject, some reply brazenly that "you should get out of software if you can't compete with free software", thereby admitting that Free Software Movement does intend to destroy the software industry. But, many people want to stick their heads in the sand. Some say, companies benefit from availability of free software. This is like saying, if you let people fly free, they will visit more places and spend more money. In other words, screw the airlines to benefit the tourism industry. Some deflect attention by pointing to Microsoft's crimes. But, free software affects all proprietary software companies, not just Microsoft. Even in areas where there is good competition between companies, and the prices are already quite reaso

Message ID: 370492 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Life, Linux and Loons There is a law suit in progress between two companies. On the one side, we have SCO, who is probably genuinely screwed by IBM, but who probably sued on a different matter. On the other side, we have IBM, who engages in unethical conduct by giving code away for free. In the middle, we have the Linux Loons continuously posting on this message board for 3 years. They have been posting their propaganda every day, every night, every weekend, every holiday, non-stop for *3 years*. Who expends this kind of time and effort? Are they in the pay of IBM? Or, are they members of an insane cult? In either case, can we believe *a word* of what they are saying? Isn't it time they vacated this board and went back to their usual hang-outs? This Yahoo! SCOX Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution under the following license: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Message ID: 370357 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Summary After my discussing the matter with several stalwarts of the board, I am happy to say that we reached these conclusions: 1. Supporting Linux is tantamount to supporting communism. 2. Free Software Movement destroys the software industry. 3. Microsoft being an illegal monopoly should stop no one from paying for and enjoying their software fully. 4. Linux desktop is really quite horrible. 5. deepdistrust has no Microsoft affiliations, so everyone should listen to him and switch to Windows pronto. Shall I suggest everyone complete their switching by noon tomorrow, and leave this board in peace forever, so the shareholders can use it henceforth to discuss important matters. This Yahoo! SCOX Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution under the following license: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Message ID: 370088 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Freedom From Complexity http://lawnormscode.sync.ph/?p=15 Stallman's first 'fundamental' freedom - the freedom to run a program - is subverted by lame operating systems like Linux, that are hard to use, make it hard to install new programs and lack the many basic facilities expected in a desktop platform. Most users care more about the freedom to run compared to the other freedoms in Stallman's list. So it actually makes more sense to develop FOSS programs for Windows. Windows is the most dominant desktop platform, so your program can be used by a large number of users. Windows is extremely easy to use, and is very accessible to non-technical users. So long as your own program is easy to use, Windows doesn't put any additional obstacles in the user's enjoyment of your program. Don't program for Linux. Linux is for losers. This Yahoo! SCOX Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution und

Message ID: 369998 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Linux Losers Have No Life Their only pleasures in life are bashing Microsoft and fantasizing about its demise. Unfortunately, no matter what happens to Microsoft, Linux desktop continues to remain the piece of turd it is, utterly unusable and completely inaccessible to most people. So, if Microsoft falls, Apple will take its place in a heart beat, and the Linux Losers will start bashing Apple then. This Yahoo! SCOX Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution under the following license: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Message ID: 369842 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Linux Lossage In a weak attempt to defend Linux and gain some rec's, cult boy Bar wrote a few words. He managed to get 39 rec's, which indicates the number of Linux supporter nyms currently in operation. The whole thing is quite pathetic, actually. There are a number of problems with his 'testimony' - I will point out three. First, bear in mind that Bar voluntarily gave money to a con cult to receive cruel and unusual punishment called 'auditing'. He is a masochist. No wonder he likes the Linux experience. Second, it is natural to question if Bar is of sound mind after having been exposed for so long to Hubbard's "teachings". Third, having given most of his money to the con cult, he is probably in dire financial difficulties, which stop him from paying for a professionally developed OS like Windows. (It is not a coincidence that many on this forum are senior citizens. They refuse to part with any

Message ID: 369641 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Linux Losers Still Here The Linux Losers have been posting messages here continusouly for the last 3 years. They want to pretend that SCO "hurt" Linux. But, Linux was going nowhere before the SCO law suit, and it is going nowhere even faster now. (Sure, there are some server deployments, but that will be until people recognize Linux for the POS it is!) The Linux hype has considerably died down. Recently, there is some noise about adoption in China and India. When it comes to home user adoption, consider that it costs a lot of money (in terms of earnings) to buy a PC in the third world countries. Haing spent all that money on hardware, nobody will load a semi-functional operating system like Linux on it. It only stands to reason. Other than the SCO law suit, the Linux Losers have no reason to believe that Linux is important any more. "SCO is trying to steal Linux. That proves Linux is valuable" - so goes the reasoni

Message ID: 369616 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Linux Loon Ignorance The Linux Loons' ignorance is on display on this board never more than when one of their pet beliefs is questioned. *I* never bought fully into this 'Linux is secure' myth when I was in the cult. I was encrypting my files. (And, when I moved from Mandrake to Suse, the file I was mounting through loopback AES256 option became worthless - Suse wouldn't support the AES256 option with loopbacks without tinkering with the kernel. I was forced to go to fuse and encfs to avoid the same hassles in the future. Welcome to the wonderful world of Linux!) The Loons' ignorance would have been simply laughable but for the fact that they go on message boards and spread the mythology to unsuspecting Windows users. With Windows, at least you are on the lookout for problems. Linux users are truly sitting ducks for any exploits that may come along. In addition, you will be facing all of the other problems with Lin

Message ID: 369436 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: The 'inherently secure' mythology http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193749,00.html The Nuts proclaim Linux is 'inherently secure' because it is based on Unix. The OS X folks may soon be learning that being based on Unix is not a panacea to security woes. In the real world, security breaches occur in unexpected ways. It's not always the grand design that matters, it is mostly the little details. Flaws in application programs, weak passwords, and social engineering account for the vast majority of security problems. There are plent of buffer overflows in Linux programs. (Yes, frog, a buffer overflow is by far the most common flaw exploited by viruses to execute arbitry code. Just because you don't know a damn thing about security, it doesn't mean I will stop saying that.) Linux users will be sitting ducks if anybody develops a virus for Linux. This Yahoo! SCOX Message Board post has been licensed for copyin

Message ID: 369156 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Linux desktop heading nowhere http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/interviews/5954/1/ "One of the most frequently cited difficulties transitioning to Linux (especially on the desktop) is that it can be difficult to find and integrate device drivers for new or obscure hardware. In addition, even when drivers are available, they may involve procedures that still strike terror into the hearts of newbies, such as recompiling the kernel." "LP: The question I'm getting at is one of the complaints you hear about the Linux kernel, and you can kind of understand it from a manufacturer's point of view, is that assuming they don't want to move their device driver directly into the kernel, you know there's no way that they want to keep 97 different binary drivers out there and have to keep tracking them. "AM: It's a problem for them, yeah; and basically we really don't do anything to accommodate them

Message ID: 369050 Posted By: deepdistrust Subject: Dear Savvy Investor You are a sensible person. You prefer practicality to pie-in-the-sky idealism. You have rejected the Linux desktop. You know that, though Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, Windows gets the job done. And, you know that the fate of law suits doesn't always depend on merit. You can see that the Linux weenies post anti-SCO messages here in the hope of driving the stock down. They may be unbalanced fanatics getting back at SCO for SCO's false allegations years ago. They may be paid agents of IBM, Red Hat or Novell or their legal teams. They may be shorts. Or, they may be trying to make it easy for someone to buy SCO off, so they can keep the donated code. What they are not is impartial or objective. Pay no attention to them. Make your decision independently of their inputs. This Yahoo! SCOX Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution under the following license: CCL Attribution-NonCommer