- WLUG - wlug.mailman3.com

RE: [Wlug] Verizon DSL on SuSE

by Martin, Eric

I have 0 visible services, but I still don't want people doing port scans. Why pose a target when I don't have to. There is no reason why anybody should be pinging my house. Therefore, I don't let them. Why would I enable anything to let people see me? Stardard security practice: Only allow what is *needed*, and I don't *need* anybody pinging me. If I do, I'll turn it on. Eric -----Original Message----- From: Josh Huber [mailto:huber@alum.wpi.edu] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 10:50 AM To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org Subject: Re: [Wlug] Verizon DSL on SuSE "Martin, Eric" <MartinE(a)worc.k12.ma.us> writes: > I personally have my firewall configured to drop pings. If they don't > know you're there, you aren't a target. Granted it doesn't keep > seasoned hackers off your box, but it's one more piece of security. I don't buy that argument. Two situations: 1) You have no other internet-visible services: * What's the harm in allowing icmp echo? Who cares, unless there happens to be some vulnerable ICMP code in the kernel. I suppose that's a risk I'd be willing to take. :) 2) You have other internet-visible services: * A port scan will reveal you, regardless of ICMP responses. -- Josh Huber _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

April 9, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Verizon DSL on SuSE

by Frank Sweetser

On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 10:50:18AM -0400, Josh Huber wrote: > "Martin, Eric" <MartinE(a)worc.k12.ma.us> writes: > > > I personally have my firewall configured to drop pings. If they > > don't know you're there, you aren't a target. Granted it doesn't > > keep seasoned hackers off your box, but it's one more piece of > > security. > > I don't buy that argument. Two situations: How about the fact that if you don't, you're open to acting as an unwitting participant in a smurf/fraggle amplification DoS? -- Frank Sweetser fs at wpi.edu WPI Network Engineer GPG fingerprint = 6174 1257 129E 0D21 D8D4 E8A3 8E39 29E3 E2E8 8CEC

April 9, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Verizon DSL on SuSE

by Josh Huber

"Martin, Eric" <MartinE(a)worc.k12.ma.us> writes: > I personally have my firewall configured to drop pings. If they > don't know you're there, you aren't a target. Granted it doesn't > keep seasoned hackers off your box, but it's one more piece of > security. I don't buy that argument. Two situations: 1) You have no other internet-visible services: * What's the harm in allowing icmp echo? Who cares, unless there happens to be some vulnerable ICMP code in the kernel. I suppose that's a risk I'd be willing to take. :) 2) You have other internet-visible services: * A port scan will reveal you, regardless of ICMP responses. -- Josh Huber

April 9, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Verizon DSL on SuSE

by doug waud

Hi again Gregory Avedissian wrote: > Well, I needed to do something, because it was acting weird. The screen > was stalling for a couple seconds at a time, every few seconds. It was > too annoying to proceed. Yes, I see that occasionally with KDE. But again, that is not Linux per se. I suspect KDE is not quite ready for prime time. :-) When this happens to me, I just CTRL/ALT/Fn to a plain terminal, init 3 (to kill the Xwindow mess) and then init 5 to restart it. Unless KDE is so screwed up that it has trashed to keyboard, this should work without rebooting. > This seems to happen after doing NIC setup in yast. Maybe I'll try it > again to see if restarting the network helps. I admit that Yast strikes me as slso a bit dodgy. But again, the rcnetwork restart and/or init 3 then 5 should bail you out. doug

April 9, 2004

RE: [Wlug] Verizon DSL on SuSE

by Martin, Eric

I personally have my firewall configured to drop pings. If they don't know you're there, you aren't a target. Granted it doesn't keep seasoned hackers off your box, but it's one more piece of security. -----Original Message----- From: Josh Huber [mailto:huber@alum.wpi.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 10:50 AM To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org Subject: Re: [Wlug] Verizon DSL on SuSE avedis(a)rcn.com writes: > [...] > then could surf, with download speeds up to 1.7M/s. Just curious, is that bytes or bits? (I wasn't aware of verizon offering such a fast link) > I even got my firewall working with the new connection, but two things > seems to have changed. SuSEfirewall2 was set not to accept pings, and > it looks like it's still set that way, but Gibson Research's port > scanning utility can ping me. The other thing is that before, I had to > manually enter commands > (iptables) to drop packets to port 119 to put it into "stealth" mode. > Now, I don't have to do that, as it already appears stealthed. Can > anyone explain either of these phenomena? I'm not sure why you would want to drop all pings. You'll probably find that the default firewalling rules drop some kinds of ICMP packets, but there are some which are useful to keep around. (personally, I think dropping all inbound ICMP is pretty annoying when trying to diagnose network issues...) As for port 119, this appears to be the NNTP (net news) port -- why would you be running a news server I'm not sure :) -- Josh Huber _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

April 9, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Verizon DSL on SuSE

by Gregory Avedissian

Well, I needed to do something, because it was acting weird. The screen was stalling for a couple seconds at a time, every few seconds. It was too annoying to proceed. This seems to happen after doing NIC setup in yast. Maybe I'll try it again to see if restarting the network helps. Thanks. Greg doug waud wrote: > Hi greg > > avedis(a)rcn.com wrote: > > (snip,snip) > > I only had to make one file edit, > >> to designate eth0 in pppoe.conf, rebooted the computer and >> then could surf, > > > That "rebooted the computer" caught my eye. This is Linux, not Windows, > you don't need to reboot. In SuSE you can just shutdown and restart the > network with > rcnetwork restart > (rcnetwork is just a script in /sbin. You can browse it with less if you > want to see the gory details.) > > doug > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > >

April 8, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Verizon DSL on SuSE

by doug waud

Hi greg avedis(a)rcn.com wrote: (snip,snip) I only had to make one file edit, > to designate eth0 in pppoe.conf, rebooted the computer and > then could surf, That "rebooted the computer" caught my eye. This is Linux, not Windows, you don't need to reboot. In SuSE you can just shutdown and restart the network with rcnetwork restart (rcnetwork is just a script in /sbin. You can browse it with less if you want to see the gory details.) doug

April 8, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Verizon DSL on SuSE

by Josh Huber

avedis(a)rcn.com writes: > Bits, I think. Whatever they advertise as supplying 1.5meg down and > 128k up. I'm at the bottom of the hill from the phone company, so > maybe that helps. I downloaded knoppix (700MB) in a little more than > an hour. Okay, that makes more sense :) > I don't know enough to have an answer. How many kinds of ICMP are > there? The firewall config file gives three choices - > > # Allow (or don't) ICMP echo pings on either the firewall or the dmz > # from the internet? The internet option is for allowing the DMZ and > # the internal network to ping the internet. > FW_ALLOW_PING_FW="no" > FW_ALLOW_PING_DMZ="no" > FW_ALLOW_PING_EXT="no" > > I understand that the first two determine whether the firewall > or the dmz respond to pings from the internet, but I'm not > sure what the third option does. I am able to ping out to the > internet, even though it's set to 'no', so I don't understand > the last comment. I'm not sure why you would want to block outbound pings, but that sounds like the intended behavior of the last option in the list. You probably don't use a DMZ configuration, so the first should just disallow inbound pings. Can you test if incoming pings are replied to? What's you IP address? > Woops. I meant port 113, identd/auth. Ah, I'm sure they don't run/firewall idend by default... -- Josh Huber

April 8, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Verizon DSL on SuSE

by avedis＠rcn.com

Josh Huber wrote: > avedis(a)rcn.com writes: > > >>[...] >>then could surf, with download speeds up to 1.7M/s. > > Just curious, is that bytes or bits? (I wasn't aware of verizon > offering such a fast link)> Bits, I think. Whatever they advertise as supplying 1.5meg down and 128k up. I'm at the bottom of the hill from the phone company, so maybe that helps. I downloaded knoppix (700MB) in a little more than an hour. > > I'm not sure why you would want to drop all pings. You'll probably > find that the default firewalling rules drop some kinds of ICMP > packets, but there are some which are useful to keep > around. (personally, I think dropping all inbound ICMP is pretty > annoying when trying to diagnose network issues...) > I don't know enough to have an answer. How many kinds of ICMP are there? The firewall config file gives three choices - # Allow (or don't) ICMP echo pings on either the firewall or the dmz from # the internet? The internet option is for allowing the DMZ and the internal # network to ping the internet. FW_ALLOW_PING_FW="no" FW_ALLOW_PING_DMZ="no" FW_ALLOW_PING_EXT="no" I understand that the first two determine whether the firewall or the dmz respond to pings from the internet, but I'm not sure what the third option does. I am able to ping out to the internet, even though it's set to 'no', so I don't understand the last comment. > As for port 119, this appears to be the NNTP (net news) port -- why > would you be running a news server I'm not sure :) > Woops. I meant port 113, identd/auth. Thanks, Greg

April 8, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Verizon DSL on SuSE

by Josh Huber

avedis(a)rcn.com writes: > [...] > then could surf, with download speeds up to 1.7M/s. Just curious, is that bytes or bits? (I wasn't aware of verizon offering such a fast link) > I even got my firewall working with the new connection, but > two things seems to have changed. SuSEfirewall2 was set not to > accept pings, and it looks like it's still set that way, but > Gibson Research's port scanning utility can ping me. The other > thing is that before, I had to manually enter commands > (iptables) to drop packets to port 119 to put it into > "stealth" mode. Now, I don't have to do that, as it already > appears stealthed. Can anyone explain either of these phenomena? I'm not sure why you would want to drop all pings. You'll probably find that the default firewalling rules drop some kinds of ICMP packets, but there are some which are useful to keep around. (personally, I think dropping all inbound ICMP is pretty annoying when trying to diagnose network issues...) As for port 119, this appears to be the NNTP (net news) port -- why would you be running a news server I'm not sure :) -- Josh Huber

April 8, 2004

Verizon DSL on SuSE

by avedis＠rcn.com

I got set up yesterday with Verizon DSL. I had to boot into windows to do the account activation, and their tech support walked me through it. Once the connection was up, I added a hub and a second computer (with XP - it's not mine, I swear) opened a browser and began surfing. Setting up DSL on SuSE 8.2 was pretty easy, considering I don't really know what I'm doing. Yast setup for a network card and dsl went smoothly. I only had to make one file edit, to designate eth0 in pppoe.conf, rebooted the computer and then could surf, with download speeds up to 1.7M/s. I even got my firewall working with the new connection, but two things seems to have changed. SuSEfirewall2 was set not to accept pings, and it looks like it's still set that way, but Gibson Research's port scanning utility can ping me. The other thing is that before, I had to manually enter commands (iptables) to drop packets to port 119 to put it into "stealth" mode. Now, I don't have to do that, as it already appears stealthed. Can anyone explain either of these phenomena? Greg

April 8, 2004

RE: [Wlug] Re: WLUG IRC anywhere?

by Martin, Eric

That's where I am now. Heck I'll even settle for being able to coax it out of the user, along with processor and RAM info...but some people you can't even get that far. (Yes all my windows are closed, it's Winter!!!) Eric -----Original Message----- From: Bill Smith [mailto:wsmith@chezsmith.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:29 PM To: Worcester Linux Users Group Subject: Re: [Wlug] Re: WLUG IRC anywhere? On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 09:06:51 -0400 "Martin, Eric" <MartinE(a)worc.k12.ma.us> wrote: > Here Here!!! Granted I've gotten into a debate with a friend of mine and > have slowly came to the conclusion that not everybody needs to know > *everything* about a computer to work one, but directories and applications > are a good start :) Worst one is when you ask and aol user for their email > addy, and they tell you HappyGoLucky127 (generally you can just assume the > @aol.com) I'll take that.... trying to know the why's and wherefore's of a computer before using one is like trying to know the intimate details of how a car works before driving one. all i ask from a user is that s/he know enough about the system they are using so that if i ask "what OS are you using?", i don't get a blank look. (i've gotten a lot of them, believe me.) -- William Smith wsmith(a)chezsmith.com Fall River, MA _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

April 8, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Re: WLUG IRC anywhere?

by Bill Smith

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 16:14:44 -0400 Bob George <mailings02(a)ttlexceeded.com> wrote: > Yes, it was very weird. Unfortunately, he was buddies with the guy who > ran the server, and since it wasn't LUG "official" (sort of like WLUG's > current) he couldn't be de-op'ed. <shaking head> there's more than one way to skin a cat. > > before being allowed onto the 'Net. something BASIC (<ahem> pun > > intended), > > Hmm... am I dating myself when I admit that I remember when computers > actually ran BASIC? <g> we can start a discussion of "i remember when..." statements, but i think it will quickly disintegrate into a pissing contest. ;) > > maybe a test of some sort... "What is the difference between a hard > > drive and a floppy drive? (holding up a 3.5" floppy) Which one is > > THIS?" > > Hold up a 5 1/4" floppy and watch 'em glaze over. :) imagine the look when i show 'em one of my 8" floppies! :) "Huh? I didn't know they made 'em THAT big!" :D > I agree at a general level, but cringe when I think what our dear ol' > government might consider "proper credentials." Visions of lobbyists and > special interests sticking all sorts of propaganda in, politically > correct, sensitive questions, and the like. "RAM" and "hard drive" > deemed hostile, "RBLs" deemed discriminatory, "cache" deemed > discriminatory to the financially challenged. I might fail whatever they > manage to concoct. i try not to put anything past the government, but i really doubt that they would be able to implement any sort of qualification list on computer users at this stage of the Game... they'd have to require the general populace to pass a test to buy a blender... (come to think of it, maybe that wouldn't be a /bad/ thing... <g>) > Then again, maybe I'm just too cynical. They've managed to institute a > series of tests and checks to ensure that anybody taking to our roads is > well-versed in the rules, and able to operate their vehicle properly, right? it's been a while since you drove on Route 128 in rush hour, hasn't it? <gd&r> > > <shrug> some days, i just want to pull out my Apple IIgs and stick > > to THAT. ...then i realize how slow it is, compared to my current > > system. :) > > I do want to get my old Apple (the REAL apple, not that Mac impostor!) > hooked up to my Linux box someday, maybe doing something "useful" like > 'tail -f' on log files. the easiest way i have found for that is to rig a serial connection to the Linux box (serial cable and a null modem) and use the Apple II as a dumb terminal. I've seen getty configurations for getting the Apple to play nice, and it worked like a champ about five years ago, when i played with it... other than that, there are ethernet cards one can buy for about $200 (!), but that's not happening in my house for a long while. i'd /love/ to have the space for GNO/ME, though... it's a unix-ish overlay for GS/OS. :D -- William Smith wsmith(a)chezsmith.com Fall River, MA

April 7, 2004

Re: WLUG IRC anywhere?

by Bob George

Martin, Eric wrote: > [...] Worst one is when you ask and aol user for their email addy, > and they tell you HappyGoLucky127 (generally you can just assume the > @aol.com) Erm... there ARE other email systems out there. They're not WRONG, just on today's Internet. - Bob (formerly 75730.2030 on CI$)

April 7, 2004

Re: WLUG IRC anywhere?

by Bob George

Bill Smith wrote: > [...] let's see if i got this right: a guy volunteered to design a > website for a LUG and insisted on using M$-specific tools. ummm... Yes, it was very weird. Unfortunately, he was buddies with the guy who ran the server, and since it wasn't LUG "official" (sort of like WLUG's current) he couldn't be de-op'ed. > [...] at the risk of sounding technocratic, i think a person should > have some level of functionality I too advocate human functionality :) > before being allowed onto the 'Net. something BASIC (<ahem> pun > intended), Hmm... am I dating myself when I admit that I remember when computers actually ran BASIC? > maybe a test of some sort... "What is the difference between a hard > drive and a floppy drive? (holding up a 3.5" floppy) Which one is > THIS?" Hold up a 5 1/4" floppy and watch 'em glaze over. :) I agree at a general level, but cringe when I think what our dear ol' government might consider "proper credentials." Visions of lobbyists and special interests sticking all sorts of propaganda in, politically correct, sensitive questions, and the like. "RAM" and "hard drive" deemed hostile, "RBLs" deemed discriminatory, "cache" deemed discriminatory to the financially challenged. I might fail whatever they manage to concoct. Then again, maybe I'm just too cynical. They've managed to institute a series of tests and checks to ensure that anybody taking to our roads is well-versed in the rules, and able to operate their vehicle properly, right? > <shrug> some days, i just want to pull out my Apple IIgs and stick > to THAT. ...then i realize how slow it is, compared to my current > system. :) I do want to get my old Apple (the REAL apple, not that Mac impostor!) hooked up to my Linux box someday, maybe doing something "useful" like 'tail -f' on log files. I could still stand a game of Karateka once in a while. :) - Bob

April 7, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Re: WLUG IRC anywhere?

by Bill Smith

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 09:06:51 -0400 "Martin, Eric" <MartinE(a)worc.k12.ma.us> wrote: > Here Here!!! Granted I've gotten into a debate with a friend of mine and > have slowly came to the conclusion that not everybody needs to know > *everything* about a computer to work one, but directories and applications > are a good start :) Worst one is when you ask and aol user for their email > addy, and they tell you HappyGoLucky127 (generally you can just assume the > @aol.com) I'll take that.... trying to know the why's and wherefore's of a computer before using one is like trying to know the intimate details of how a car works before driving one. all i ask from a user is that s/he know enough about the system they are using so that if i ask "what OS are you using?", i don't get a blank look. (i've gotten a lot of them, believe me.) -- William Smith wsmith(a)chezsmith.com Fall River, MA

April 7, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Re: WLUG IRC anywhere?

by Bill Smith

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 10:59:32 -0400 Bob George <mailings02(a)ttlexceeded.com> wrote: > For our poor little IRC channel, it was particularly bad. This kid had > joined the LUG list, and offered to do all kinds of web development etc. > with the hopes he'd get some free advertising for his "big business > venture." No problem there, but he proceeded to rant on-list about > wanting to use ASP etc., arguing against open-source content management > tools as "boring." let's see if i got this right: a guy volunteered to design a website for a LUG and insisted on using M$-specific tools. ummm... > That carried over to the IRC channel, and he'd essentially scare off any > potential Linux converts with his lousy attitude. that's not Good. > We'd best watch it, or they'll start mandating the equivalent of > seatbelt and helmet laws for computers. I agree that users should be > responsible, but I don't want the government dictating how "safe" > software should be developed. I like the idea of an INFORMED user base. at the risk of sounding technocratic, i think a person should have some level of functionality before being allowed onto the 'Net. something BASIC (<ahem> pun intended), maybe a test of some sort... "What is the difference between a hard drive and a floppy drive? (holding up a 3.5" floppy) Which one is THIS?" <shrug> some days, i just want to pull out my Apple IIgs and stick to THAT. ...then i realize how slow it is, compared to my current system. :) -- William Smith wsmith(a)chezsmith.com Fall River, MA

April 7, 2004

Re: [Wlug] 64 bit architechture

by Karl Hiramoto

my deskdtop has Kernel 2.4.22 and the config has processor options for AMD64. You might be best though with a 2.6.X kernel though I'm running 2.6.3 in gentoo-dev-sources now on my laptop, and it is going very well. > Greetings all; > > Sorry i've not been able to attend the meetings in a while... still trying > to get past some health problems... > > can any one tell me which kernel version would be suitable for a machine > with 64 bit architechture? > > thanx in advance > > dave goss > > assimulation is futile > > > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > -- Karl Hiramoto <karl(a)hiramoto.org> Work: 978-425-2090 ext 25 Cell: 508-517-4819 Personal web page: http://karl.hiramoto.org/ AOL IM ID = KarlH420 Yahoo_IM = karl_hiramoto

April 7, 2004

Re: [Wlug] 64 bit architechture

by Gregory Boyce

64 bit architectures have been supported for a rather long time in Linux, depending on the arch. If you're compiling a new kernel, I would suggest the 2.6 series (2.6.5 is the current version). It has a lot of improvements and is much speedier. I'm not sure which 64 bit arch you're talking about, but you may need patches to get the kernel fully stable. There are seperate sets of PPC/PPC64, Alpha and Sparc64 patches. There are probably some out there for ia64 (Itanium) and x86-64 (Athlon64) as well. On Fri, 2004-04-02 at 10:57, David Goss wrote: > Greetings all; > > Sorry i've not been able to attend the meetings in a while... still trying > to get past some health problems... > > can any one tell me which kernel version would be suitable for a machine > with 64 bit architechture? > > thanx in advance > > dave goss > > assimulation is futile > > > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

April 7, 2004

Re: [Wlug] 64 bit architechture

by Gary Hanley

Well the obvious question is, "Which architecture?" I hope it's not Itanic. :-) If it's AMD64, I suspect Gentoo may be preferable. I plan on splurging on the new AMD chip in the near future and have also been trying to decide which distro to use. Any other architecture, sorry, I have no idea. -- Gary On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, David Goss wrote: > can any one tell me which kernel version would be suitable for a machine > with 64 bit architechture?

April 7, 2004

RE: [Wlug] Re: WLUG IRC anywhere?

by Martin, Eric

Here Here!!! Granted I've gotten into a debate with a friend of mine and have slowly came to the conclusion that not everybody needs to know *everything* about a computer to work one, but directories and applications are a good start :) Worst one is when you ask and aol user for their email addy, and they tell you HappyGoLucky127 (generally you can just assume the @aol.com) Eric -----Original Message----- From: orbitz(a)ezabel.com [mailto:orbitz@ezabel.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 10:12 AM To: Worcester Linux Users Group Subject: Re: [Wlug] Re: WLUG IRC anywhere? Having tried to fix many peoples Windows XP installs I find XP very unmanagable. The guts (generally what I need to fix) is so hidden from the user in an attempt to keep up the facade of 'ease of use' it's a PITA to get around just to fix a screwy network connection. How many windows users don't even know what a directory is? I don't call that ease of use, merely keeping them ignorant. It's a sad state of computer use:) On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 09:51:56 -0400 Bill Smith <wsmith(a)chezsmith.com> wrote: > On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:43:57 -0400 > Bob George <mailings02(a)ttlexceeded.com> wrote: > > > Hey, at least there's not some kid constantly griping that Windows > > was > > so much easier (what happened to the Phoenix LUG channel - now #plugaz). > > I often find myself sighing at the "Windows is easier" crowd. i want > to educate them to what is available to them, to show them that > "easier" does not necessarily mean "best for the job". Easier might > be just that (easy), but it sometimes means making the wrong choice. > > If a person wants to favor an operating system simply because it's > "easy", then that person deserves all the resulting heartache s/he > gets. often, the person looking for "easy" will think "ease of use" > instead of "ease to get going without immediate worry"... If that > became a major concern instead, I think we would see a decided shift > towards unix variants. Sure, Win* might be easy to USE, but if you > want it networked, there's a bit of know-how and effort involved to > make it SECURE. (that could probably be said for any OS, but it is > more true for Win* than for many others.) > > > A lot of LUG channels are largely idle, but I tend to lurk and > > occasionally there are some gems worth waiting for. > > :) granted. can't argue that one. > > -- > > William Smith wsmith(a)chezsmith.com > Fall River, MA > _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

April 7, 2004

Re: WLUG IRC anywhere?/Windows

by doug waud

Hi (Can't resist my two bits worth! :-) ) >>Hey, at least there's not some kid constantly griping that Windows was >>so much easier If it is so "easy", why is it that PC Magazine has been able to generate pages and pages of how to fix things in Windows, every issue for 10 to 15 years? :-) doug

April 6, 2004

Re: [Wlug] WLUG IRC anywhere?

by Keith Wright

> From: "Charles R. Anderson" <cra(a)WPI.EDU> > > Yeah there is this one called Eliza...you should talk to it > sometime... You seem to be interested in Eliza. Would you like me to help you to should talk to it sometime...? -- Clippy

April 6, 2004

Re: [Wlug] Re: WLUG IRC anywhere?

by Jeff Moyer

==> Regarding [Wlug] Re: WLUG IRC anywhere?; Bob George <mailings02(a)ttlexceeded.com> adds: mailings02> Keller, Tim wrote: >> I generally find that linux irc channels fall into two categories. >> >> 1. Neophytes + Zealots (of windows and linux) duking it out online >> 2. Elitists discussing highly esoteric topics such as altering disk >> timing performance via hot kernel patches to /proc/kmem mailings02> 3. "Good morning" and "how's the weather?" :) 4. Newbie questions galore. -phro

April 6, 2004

Re: WLUG IRC anywhere?

by Bob George

Keller, Tim wrote: > I generally find that linux irc channels fall into two categories. > > 1. Neophytes + Zealots (of windows and linux) duking it out online > 2. Elitists discussing highly esoteric topics such as altering disk timing > performance via hot kernel patches to /proc/kmem 3. "Good morning" and "how's the weather?" :) > I'll take category 2 any day, generally through lurking I'll learn > something. I'm mostly lurking trying to get a feel for the local community. So far, I get the feeling everyone's still hibernating from winter. Hopefully it'll pick up ... some. - Bob

April 6, 2004