Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
Best version of MS-DOS?
MS-DOS version 1 22%
MS-DOS version 2 3%
MS-DOS version 3 9%
MS-DOS version 4 3%
MS-DOS version 5 22%
MS-DOS version 6 19%
Windows 95 19%

Votes: 31

 Yes, I am a hacker. I hack.

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Mar 17, 2002
 Comments:
I was amused, bemused, befuddled and, yes, bewildered by many of the comments made to my first diary entry. I'd like to share what I regard the word 'hacker' as meaning.
diaries

More diaries by FriendlyHacker
I feel so lonely
Why...
Communism makes sense
What do you think of when you hear the word 'hack'? Do you think of an honest American hacking away at a freshly-felled oak? Do you think of an old-age pensioner trying to get a hole-in-one on the 18th hole? Do you think of a crazed axe murderer bludgeoning his neighbour's brains out with blow after sickening blow? No, most of you think of a lank-haired, masturbation-addicted, socially-retarded greaseball, sat naked save for a pair of semen-encrusted underwear, hunched over a flickering monitor, discussing illegal activities such as 'pinging' Microsoft web-servers, or encrypting their tarballs with gzip.
I think of hacking as the woodman. I am the woodman. My keyboard is my axe. The program is my log. The splinters are the bugs in my program that must be avoided. While I could go on a murderous rampage with my axe, slaying all before me in a bloody rampage of bodily fluids and viscera being rent asunder, I instead use my skills for good. I use the only approved and legal version of L.I.N.U.X., the Redhat operating system, which lacks many of the dangerous tools that malicious users like, such as ping, ssh, and xemacs (used to write many a nimda worm I can tell you).
While some people will attempt to skirt the whole issue with high-falutin' talk about 'hackers and crackers', there's only one thing that matters at the end of the day: ethics. Much like when you decide to buy a woman a drink rather than rape her, you must use your hacking skills for good and control any malicious impulses you may have.

       
Tweet

Your not very bright, r u? (3.00 / 2) (#1)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 07:22:33 PM PST
there is nothing wrong with pinging microsoft servers - the only people who use them are people who think microsoft and intel is the top of the world, and amd and linux are made by sweatshops. Pinging a server simply means that you are seeing how long it takes for a packet to reach the server from your computer. Even if it was bad only crappy servers run windows.

encrypting tarballs with gzip is not bad either - it's simply a way of encrypting and compressing programs (that you can download from any open source website).

Linux is not spelled L.I.N.U.X. Linux is a form of unix that is widely available. And i can make redhat have all the "danguerous tools" like ping (which informs you of how long it takes a packet to reach an ip address), ssh (which allows remote shell and ftp connections - very useful for installing a program on your remote server, or transferring a new website onto it), xemacs (a very nice programing/debugging piece of software). And btw, by redhat box has all of those listed programs.


You're not very bright, are you? (1.00 / 1) (#2)
by Yoshi on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 07:58:45 PM PST
there is nothing wrong with pinging microsoft servers

Sure, "nothing wrong" as in that it doesn't harm the Microsoft mainframes shielded behind the Windows XP Firewall. However, you are still stealing that company's bandwidth and illegally accessing their logon client information, whether you choose to believe it or not.

the only people who use them are people who think microsoft and intel is the top of the world,

Microsoft is the world's leading software manufacturer. Intel is the world's leading chip manufacturer. What makes that so absurd?

and amd and linux are made by sweatshops.

AMD chips are made in sweatshops. Lunix, however, is crafted in the many poorly-lit rooms of illegal hackers across the world, collaborating their outlawed sauce code as their own personal stance against establishment.

Pinging a server simply means that you are seeing how long it takes for a packet to reach the server from your computer.

Exactly. Where do you think that IP datagram packet is transcribed to? That's right, it goes right through the bandwidth of the company you are hacking. What gives you permission to access Microsoft's corporate mainframe without going through their own www.microsoft.com servers? Is it suddenly tyrannical rule? Can you just illegally download the login information via your pinging utility from any vulnerable UNIX server?

Even if it was bad only crappy servers run windows.

Adequacy.org runs Microsoft IIS 5.0 on Windows 2000 servers. Surely you are not calling Adequacy.org a "crappy server" - that is an obvious trollish statement and is grounds to get you banned from this site forever.

encrypting tarballs with gzip is not bad either - it's simply a way of encrypting and compressing programs

Encrypting is not inherrently bad, just like Napster's original intentions, but its abundant use of secretly scrambling the Open Sores codes that violate international laws, like DeCSS, overshadow its original purpose. Thus, it is at the behest of any Freedom supporting, patriotic American to make sure that encryption is expelled from the hands of the terrorists who wish to plot their own little hacker plans against the government.

Linux is not spelled L.I.N.U.X. Linux is a form of unix that is widely available.

You can try to defend Lunix's hacker userbase all you want, but redefining its objective does no good to your case.

"danguerous tools" like ping (which informs you of how long it takes a packet to reach an ip address)

By illegally "piggybacking" the bandwidth of the company you are hacking into. Your 'packet' returns with an IP datagram transcript of the server's login data, giving you free reign into the machine should you bypass the Windows XP Firewall.

ssh (which allows remote shell and ftp connections - very useful for installing a program on your remote server, or transferring a new website onto it)

Yeah, in theory. "ssh" is merely the Back Orifice and SubSeven client of the lunix world, allowing you to spy in on your neighbor while he innocently reads his Hotmail account, replying to his elderly father who's in his deathbed in the hospital, getting his only daily joy out of the emails he receives from his son on his laptop. How dare you.

xemacs (a very nice programing/debugging piece of software)

EMAX is more than a "debugging" software - with it, you can illegally reverse-engineer the secret codes of Microsoft's software, including the venerable Office XP. Just because the world won't adopt your communist anti-American Open Sores movement doesn't mean you must expose the highly advanced codes of the companies who represent everything we as Americans stand for in our Capitalist system. I really hope you get what's coming to you.

And btw, by redhat box has all of those listed programs.

Great. The FBI will certainly be pleased with your admission of guilt as the editors of Adequacy.org turn over your IP token information. The world will soon be a better place with hacker scum like you behind iron bars.


comical (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 01:43:13 AM PST
Sure, "nothing wrong" as in that it doesn't harm the Microsoft mainframes shielded behind the Windows XP Firewall. However, you are still stealing that company's bandwidth and illegally accessing their logon client information, whether you choose to believe it or not.

Apparently Microsoft doesn't know too much about security then does it? I mean why would anyone want to run a limited software firewall on a desktop operating system to protect their entire network? You see there is no server version of WindowsXP. They use Windows 2000. The nest server OS from MS will be available sometime in 2003-04 and is called Server.NET. One more thing. I seriously doubt that MS is dependent on mainframes. It's likely their running Windows on x86 systems (Intel/AMD).

Pinging usually involves a few packets. Each are usually 32 bytes. Hardly enough to kill bandwidth. Not to mention that if you are access a system directly connected to the outside world there's about 10mbps or more. Anything inside that there's anywhere between 100 to 1000mbps.

Microsoft is the world's leading software manufacturer. Intel is the world's leading chip manufacturer. What makes that so absurd?

Actually Taiwanese companies are the biggest chip manufacturers in the world. Most motherboards and chipsets are manufactured by these companies and not Intel.

AMD chips are made in sweatshops.

Yes we've all read the article. Great source to point out by the way. Oh, but isn't it funny how Intel is the one with factories in the Phillipenes and not AMD? All the equipment, even if it were huddled together, would still take up a considerable amount of space. I wonder why no one at the Intel factories has ever seen them. And if they have, why hasn't Intel launched an ad campaign against AMD for this?

Exactly. Where do you think that IP datagram packet is transcribed to? That's right, it goes right through the bandwidth of the company you are hacking. What gives you permission to access Microsoft's corporate mainframe without going through their own www.microsoft.com servers? Is it suddenly tyrannical rule? Can you just illegally download the login information via your pinging utility from any vulnerable UNIX server?

Pinging is like yelling a message across the Grand Canyon and timing how long it takes for the sound to hit a rock and come back. What is PING? ECHO. Only what was transmitted returns.

Adequacy.org runs Microsoft IIS 5.0 on Windows 2000 servers. Surely you are not calling Adequacy.org a "crappy server" - that is an obvious trollish statement and is grounds to get you banned from this site forever. Accidently mistyping a URL will lead you to a default error message. Correct Example Mistyped Example What does it say? Now you claim that adequacy.org does not run on a crappy server. So it must run Apache on Windows right? I mean it would explain why this site is so slow and runs like shit. However, a simple trip to uptime.netcraft.com reveals that it's FreeBSD.

Encrypting is not inherrently bad, just like Napster's original intentions, but its abundant use of secretly scrambling the Open Sores codes that violate international laws, like DeCSS, overshadow its original purpose.

Yet anyone can simply uncompress them if they wanted to. Even the FBI. I mean I could send secrets with WinZip too if I wanted.

You can try to defend Lunix's hacker userbase all you want, but redefining its objective does no good to your case.

Yet none of you have successfully proven illgel activities of Linux developers. Sure maybe the developers of DeCSS got into trouble but that OSS and not Linux specific.

By illegally "piggybacking" the bandwidth of the company you are hacking into. Your 'packet' returns with an IP datagram transcript of the server's login data, giving you free reign into the machine should you bypass the Windows XP Firewall.

Paranoid bullshit

Yeah, in theory. "ssh" is merely the Back Orifice and SubSeven client of the lunix world, allowing you to spy in on your neighbor while he innocently reads his Hotmail account, replying to his elderly father who's in his deathbed in the hospital, getting his only daily joy out of the emails he receives from his son on his laptop. How dare you.

Oh yes not unlike Remote Desktop, Remote Assistant or Terminal Services for Windows. Ohhhh BURN!

EMAX is more than a "debugging" software - with it, you can illegally reverse-engineer the secret codes of Microsoft's software, including the venerable Office XP.

Do you actually think you can just take a program like Windows XP or Office XP, open it using emacs and expect to be presented with the source code? Don't tell me you're that dumb.

Great. The FBI will certainly be pleased with your admission of guilt as the editors of Adequacy.org turn over your IP token information. The world will soon be a better place with hacker scum like you behind iron bars.

I don't think the goverment has a problem with Unix/Linux. I mean every branch of the military runs Unix/Linux as do reputable organisations like NYSE. Former president Clinton and President Bush are Mac users. Hell the government won't even grant Microsoft a government contract without a Unix offering. Oh look, old ass versions of IE.

Also who's to say the FBI would pose a threat to anyone using Linux outside the US? Hell look at Great Britain. It's entire Police force uses Linux and Parliment is up in arms over Microsoft's new licensing. Hell most European countries are now involved in their own antitrust cases against The Beast.


humorous (1.00 / 1) (#16)
by Yoshi on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 02:54:42 PM PST
I mean why would anyone want to run a limited software firewall on a desktop operating system to protect their entire network?

I, for one, run the Windows XP Firewall to stop hackers like you dead in their tracks before you illegally ping my computer.

Pinging usually involves a few packets. Each are usually 32 bytes.

Are those 32 bytes yours to steal? What if I went into Wal-Mart and took "only 32 cents worth of candy"? Was it mine in the first place? Does the amount you stole make it any less of a crime? No.

Actually Taiwanese companies are the biggest chip manufacturers in the world. Most motherboards and chipsets are manufactured by these companies and not Intel.

Dead wrong. Intel is the world's leading chip manufacturer by revenue and by product.

And if they have, why hasn't Intel launched an ad campaign against AMD for this?

Economic suicide. Nike was involved in a sweatshop scandal, but Adidas didn't come out the next day with TV commercials denouncing it. The fact is, there's no easy way for Intel to spin the sweatshops in AMD's asian factories for their own gain. Thus, they don't touch it. Smart move.

Pinging is like yelling a message across the Grand Canyon and timing how long it takes for the sound to hit a rock and come back. What is PING? ECHO. Only what was transmitted returns.

That's the worst analogy I have ever heard. Hello, clue train calling. Your proverbial "echo" is more than that. Does it cost you money to utilize the airwaves of the Grand Canyon for your own high-pitched, squeaky hacker teenage vocal chords? No. However, does it cost the businesses whom you are robbing of bandwidth money while you illegally process their logon passwords? Yes. Get some common sense, moron.

Now you claim that adequacy.org does not run on a crappy server. So it must run Apache on Windows right? I mean it would explain why this site is so slow and runs like shit.

Adequacy.org is not running on "Apache" on any platform. It runs on highly advanced Microsoft Internet Information Server 5.0 on the robust Windows 2000 platform. If you say that Adequacy.org "is slow and runs like shit," I think it's time for you to check your own Ethiopian internet connection. It's fine for me, and everyone else who flocks among us.

However, a simple trip to uptime.netcraft.com reveals that it's FreeBSD.

As has been proven time and time again, Netcraft is a fraud and is used internally by the Open Sores movement to boast their own fake statistics of usage data, when in all actuality, over 82% of Fortune 500 companies run Microsoft IIS on Windows platforms.

Yet anyone can simply uncompress them if they wanted to. Even the FBI. I mean I could send secrets with WinZip too if I wanted.

Yes, "anyone." Anyone, as in, anyone with high-powered IBM mainframes capable of cracking 1024-XORBIT encryption sockets. Well lookie here, Lucy, the FBI doesn't have time to decrypt the entire nation's collection of illegally WinZipped files just to search for terrorist activities. Their network of mainframes could be put to better use without scum like you bothering them.

Yet none of you have successfully proven illgel [sic] activities of Linux developers.

Uh, are you ignoring everything I say? They are illegally undermining the freedom and security of our government by offering their own "hacker" operating system whose sole goal is to attack the critical infrastructure that binds this nation's economy together. If that, sir, isn't a crime, I don't know what is.

Oh yes not unlike Remote Desktop, Remote Assistant or Terminal Services for Windows.

Except the very fact that unlike your "ssh" and "vnc" hacking tools, the three you mentioned are explicitly permitted under Microsoft's Windows license. So, take that to the bank the next time you're illegally snooping on somebody's ATM PIN code with your "ssh."

Do you actually think you can just take a program like Windows XP or Office XP, open it using emacs and expect to be presented with the source code?

Why the hell else would there be such a cult fanatical following behind such a rudimentary script formatter like EMAX? We all know how easy it is for you in the Open Sores community to distribute the sauce code to the Microsoft Monster Madness games and strip them from their rightfully earned profits - fitting in with your own quasi-socialistic view of how the economy should be run. Well, listen up: it's not how it's run, and nothing gives you and your EMAX the right to change it. Get a job, you filthy nutbag.

I mean every branch of the military runs Unix/Linux as do reputable organisations like NYSE.

You have to attack the enemy with the enemy. Imagine if the US Military was faced with an onslaught of renegade Lunix hacking computers and they had no idea what to do? Thus, they experiment with their own Lunix defenses against that type of attack. Be thankful.

Hell most European countries are now involved in their own antitrust cases against The Beast.

That, my friend, is called an opportunistic lawsuit. The EU knows there's money to be had by going after a successful company like Microsoft, so why not do it? Those Euroscum communists have no place tampering with hard earned American corporations.


Doesn't exactly help (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by budlite on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 03:08:48 PM PST
I, for one, run the Windows XP Firewall to stop hackers like you dead in their tracks before you illegally ping my computer

Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. The data packet(s) still reach(es) your computer. It's just that the firewall discards it rather than passes it on to the relevant application.


Balogna (1.00 / 1) (#18)
by Yoshi on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 04:49:21 PM PST
Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. The data packet(s) still reach(es) your computer. It's just that the firewall discards it rather than passes it on to the relevant application.

Your disinformation in the field of computer networking is astounding. Please, before you spread any more of your rumor-mongering, I urge you to at least familiarize yourself with the basic fundimentals of the way the Internet and its computer networking counterparts work. It's the least you can do to make yourself look less foolish than you really are, although only masking the inner lack of knowledge that you possess in the field you profess knowing so much about. By saying that the "data packet(s)" still "reach(es)" my "computer," your extolling of lies to back your point up becomes more rampant. Listen here, buddy, the Windows XP Firewall prevents the illegal datagram packets right at the source of the problem, the big backbones of the internet as your packet is rejected straight from the Cisco routers that listen in on my Windows XP Firewall and reflect your illegal P.I.N.G attacks. Rather than boasting in your own little world of how you'd like for computers to work, further proporting your own little hacker desires, perhaps you could actually stop what irrelevant drivel you are writing, take a step back, and actually think about the nonsense you claim to be true. Maybe, if you are lucky, you will see how utterly clueless you really are.


I give up (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 11:44:31 PM PST
You're just too damned stupid. Please go and continue to live in your make-believe world. Tell the guards at the institute I said hello.


 
Listen, dumbape (none / 0) (#29)
by budlite on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 09:04:16 AM PST
The WinXP firewall is SOFTWARE, not hardware. Only a hardware firewall connected between your computer and the connection to the rest of the internet will stop blocked packets reaching your computer. Even then they'll still eat some up some infinitesimal amount of bandwidth reaching the hardware firewall. It can't deny a packet without first knowing about it. The only way it can know about it is to recieve it. USE YOUR BRAIN (or someone else's, failing that).


Hardware firewalls... (none / 0) (#31)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 09:36:36 AM PST
...are a bit of misnomer.

Even if it is a dedicated box that serves no other purpose, even if it is not a full-scale PC, still it is a computer. CPU, memory, network interfaces, software.

A purely hardware firewall and a discarded 486 with a boot floppy of Linux or BSD are mostly equivalent, except that the second case is usually even cheaper and can do more things.

I think the expression here should be "dedicated firewall", meaning a piece of hardware with two network interfaces, sitting between the LAN and the hostile world of the Net. Regardless what the internal construction of the hardware is, regardless if its software is in ROMs or on a floppy.


Sorry, yes (none / 0) (#37)
by budlite on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 01:47:43 PM PST
Yes, you're right. But what you described is basically what I meant.


 
Hi! (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 06:20:39 AM PST
Where have you been, Yoshi? We missed you a lot, with those fantastic inventions of yours, your truly amazing knowledge, and this constant desire to spread it, like jam on a toast.


Little correction (2.50 / 2) (#11)
by The Mad Scientist on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 06:28:27 AM PST
your truly amazing knowledge, and this constant desire to spread it, like jam on a toast.

Rather Nutella than jam. The color is more accurate.


 
Thanks for the welcome. (1.00 / 1) (#20)
by Yoshi on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 05:08:45 PM PST
It's been a while, but I took a little time off for myself after being disgusted at the level of idiocy amongst these "computer nerds" who think they rule the roost because they found out how to recompile their sauce code. It looks to me though, as clearly evident by the person whom I replied to, these people refuse to change. They need people with honesty, truth and the courage to stand up in the face of their Open Sores lies and Communist manifestos and tell it like it is. Thank you, kind sir, for holding out hope. The world will eventually quarantine these types of people and history will look back upon them as the terrorists that they are. Give it time, my dear friend, and the truth will reign.


ur not very bright r u? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 10:19:59 PM PST
no comment


 
*had to do it* (4.00 / 1) (#15)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 08:46:59 AM PST
here's evidence of this guy's abject ignorance: a dump of the HTTP and SMTP responses from adequacy.org's server:

C:\> telnet www.adequacy.org 80[return]
S: GET / HTTP/1.0[CRLF]
R: HTTP/1.1 200 OK[CRLF]
R: Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:42:30 GMT[CRLF]
R: Server: Apache/1.3.22 (Unix)[CRLF]
R: Last-Modified: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:33:01 GMT[CRLF]
R: ETag: "210b3-7ffe-3c95a63d"[CRLF]
R: Accept-Ranges: bytes[CRLF]
R: Content-Length: 32766[CRLF]
R: Connection: close[CRLF]
R: Content-Type: text/html[CRLF]
R: [CRLF]
R: ...(webpage data) C:\> telnet www.adequacy.org 25[return]
R: 220 adequacy.org ESMTP Sendmail 8.11.3/8.11.3; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:44:45 GMT[CRLF]
S: QUIT[CRLF]
R: 221 2.0.0 adequacy.org closing connection[CRLF]
C:\>



Uh, does the law mean anything to you? (1.00 / 1) (#19)
by Yoshi on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 05:04:16 PM PST
Excuse me, dear sir:

Under what grounds do you allow yourself to illegally probe Adequacy.org's server without the licensed use of a legal HTTP renderer, specifically, Microsoft Internet Explorer? I don't know what rock this "telnet" browser comes from underneath, but if it's one of those Open Sores companies, I'll be damned if it doesn't violate strict Adequacy.org policies. Also, your "dump" doesn't seem to feature the Adequacy.org ad banner. Am I to believe that you are not only utilizing Adequacy.org's services illegally, but using them without just compensation? Sir, I would be hard pressed to find a way out of an immediate ban if I were you.

R: 220 adequacy.org ESMTP Sendmail 8.11.3/8.11.3; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:44:45 GMT[CRLF]
S: QUIT[CRLF]
R: 221 2.0.0 adequacy.org closing connection[CRLF]


What in the name of hell is that? Are you now using Adequacy.org's premium email services for your own spam? Listen up, buckeroo, Adequacy.org isn't your own little playground for your illegal activities. It's certainly not a launching ground for your new weight loss proposal or to show off your latest hacker tricks to your other obese and grotesque nerdboy friends. Either use Adequacy.org's resources appropriately and as intended, or face the stiff consequences. Computer hacking is a serious crime in this day in age, and terrorists like you needn't be running the proverbial streets tearing amuck this nation's critical infrastructure with your illegal spam tactics and telnet browsers.


your not very bright r u? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 08:08:25 PM PST
sorta funny how telnet and ping are included with all verisons of windows.


You're not very bright, are you? (1.00 / 1) (#23)
by Yoshi on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 08:52:53 PM PST
That's funny - my legal copy of Windows XP doesn't have any of the "telnet" or "P.I.N.G" tools in my start menu. We here at Adequacy.org don't take too kindly to fabrication of details. If you can't win on the merits, making up misinformation won't win your side of the argument. The very thought of illegal open sores trojan horse hacker virus flooding tools being accidentally included by the world's foremost software company is absurd. Things like that don't pass through quality control. Perhaps you ought to check your own method of distribution - IRC isn't a valid retailer, I'm so sorry to have to tell you.


wow your not very bright. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 10:09:41 PM PST
lol, since you still think your start menu is the best center of your computer why don't you click it, and open up accessories, and run the program command program. you have what is called the "NT Command Prompt" which is basically the microsoft rip off of a linux terminal emulator. You can enter dos commands, etc in this "NT Command Prompt." For example if you wanted to ping adequacy.org you would type in "ping adequacy.org" If you wanted to telnet adequacy.org you would type in "telnet adequacy.org" for help using this programs try typing "ping --help" or "telnet --help"


 
Listen to me again (none / 0) (#30)
by budlite on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 09:07:49 AM PST
Go to the Start menu. Click "run". type in the little box "telnet adequacy.org 80". observe. idiot.


 
Ummm... (none / 0) (#32)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 09:41:19 AM PST
That's funny - my legal copy of Windows XP doesn't have any of the "telnet" or "P.I.N.G" tools in my start menu.

Go to Start menu. Go to Programs. Go to Accessories.

Run "MS DOS Prompt" or "Command Prompt" or however is it labeled in your version.

A black window appears. It is the most advanced of the interfaces, the Command Line. Apparently only the best of the best are capable of using it.


This only proves Windows is hackable. (none / 0) (#33)
by elenchos on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 10:08:19 AM PST
Which is unfortunate, but no one ever said it was perfect. It is merely adequate to get work done, unlike Linux Torvalt's KDE operating system. But just because you can break the security measures and run dangerous programs is no reason to think it is therefore legal or moral.

I think what happens to hackers is once they feel the thrill of abusing their computers with telnet and ping, there is no turning back and the become addicts. My hope is that if Windows doesn't remove these exploitable security holes, society will switch to the much less hackable Macintosh Apple.

The other advantage of Macintosh's computers is that they don't have fans that drone on and on all day long, driving hackers to even worse states of mental fatigue and instability.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Huh? (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 11:55:57 AM PST
The Windows command prompt is not illegal nor does it require any hacking. It's available through the START menu or using Run and typing cmd or command (version specific). Especially with server version of Windows it's the best way to troubleshoot a system when it won't boot to the GUI. The recovery CD (desktop), REcovery Console and Emergency Repair Disk don't always solve the problem correctly. Sometimes they make it worse.
Telnet
A terminal emulation protocol commonly used on the Internet and TCP/IP-based networks. It allows a user at a terminal or computer to log onto a remote device and run a program. Telnet was originally developed for ARPAnet and is an inherent part of the TCP/IP communications protocol.

Although most computers on the Internet that allow Telnet access require users to have an established account and password, there are some that allow the public to run programs such as search utilities. More on telnet
PING
(Packet INternet Groper) An Internet utility used to determine whether a particular IP address is online. It is used to test and debug a network by sending out a packet and waiting for a response. More on PING (1, 2)
Why buy a network troubleshooting suite when most of the tools come free with all modern OSes? Next you'll be trying to convince people that traceroute is bad too.

My hope is that if Windows doesn't remove these exploitable security holes, society will switch to the much less hackable Macintosh Apple.

Yes I would much rather use the terminal in MacOS than the command prompt in Windows. I can use standard unix commands rather than DOS/Windows specific commands. Hello, MacOSX uses a Unix core (Darwin) dummy.

The other advantage of Macintosh's computers is that they don't have fans that drone on and on all day long, driving hackers to even worse states of mental fatigue and instability.

Apparently you've never actually used a Mac have you? All Macs have fans. Even the iMac has internal fans. What the hell you think that little vent was for? So it can double as a piggy bank? Laptops have them too. Most of the fans are internel as a laptop's guts are so crammed the inside of the thing heats up rather quickly. They also require adequate ventilation.


That is just disgusting. (none / 0) (#35)
by elenchos on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 01:31:22 PM PST
No legitimate tool would be called a "groper". Does your mother know what you do? Would you want your daughter to know that you use a "groper" to violate the computers of innocent strangers? The illegality is obvious. All tools that are useful only to thieves, terrorists and hackers are illegal. The only people with a valid need for such things are licensed professinals.

And none of Macintosh's computers have those noisy fans. You're thinking of your sweatshop-produced AMD computer. You can find any replacement part you want for any of Mac's computers on the web, can't you?

Find me a replacement fan, smart boy.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Your argument is flawed (none / 0) (#38)
by budlite on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 01:51:52 PM PST
All tools that are useful only to thieves, terrorists and hackers are illegal

Therefore, ping, telnet, ssh, traceroute et al are not illegal.


What use are these things... (none / 0) (#40)
by elenchos on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 02:05:28 PM PST
...to any normal user? Obviously, Micro-Soft tried to lock them away, but didn't do an effective enough job. Hackers, though not bright, are unbelievably persistent, and apparently through days of trial-and-error, they have discoverd a "back door" in Windows that lets them run these tools.

Tools that only licensed professionals have any legitimate need to even know about.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Your heaven is the free world's hell (none / 0) (#42)
by budlite on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 03:39:16 PM PST
telnet: can't use a shell account without it. Although, the versions of telnet that are supplied with Windows are extremely poor. Can also be used to connect to just about any other kind of server. The only difference between using telnet and an IRC client, say, is that using telnet you have to type the raw commands yourself. They're exactly the same commands that would be sent by an IRC client, by the way. Same goes for HTTP, NNTP, POP3, SMTP, you name it.

ping: for checking whether a given server is alive and well. You'd want it if you were running your own web server.

ssh: see telnet, only the data channel is encrypted

traceroute: to discover bottlenecks in connecting to a server. This message has undoubtedly gone through many intermediate computers on its path to Adequacy, and the slow connection could be either Adequacy's own server or one of the intermediate ones. traceroute allows you to know which.

There's no "back door" that allows users to run these programs. Microsoft didn't try to lock them away from regular users. Why? Because they're harmless. They're all there, present and runnable, in the C:\<Windows | WinNT> folder, just begging to be run. All the use has to do is perform the non-malicious task of opening a command prompt and typing the command name.

As I've said, your idea of licensing computer users and programmers is unworkable. It would create a huge drain on labour within the industry, and like as not computers would fall from grace, taking a sizeable chunk of the global economy with it.


Absurd. (none / 0) (#44)
by elenchos on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 04:39:19 PM PST
Legitimate ISPs don't offer shell accounts. And why would they? None of those tasks you listed should ever be attempted by a regular person. Professionals, sure, but not the general public.

Micro-Soft did pretty well in locking regular users out of these professional tools. How many regular users have even heard of them? 0.00001% But they should have done a better job, on that we can agree.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Professionals (none / 0) (#49)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 12:46:55 AM PST
None of those tasks you listed should ever be attempted by a regular person. Professionals, sure, but not the general public.

Am I a professional, or a general public? I have no papers to back what I know. I have no intent to waste time on a worthless piece of paper in a plastic frame. Many times I was called to clean up after a "certified professional" and redo what he messed up.

Many of the tasks were attempted - more often successfully than not - by the users in my care. With minimal training, an user on the phone can serve as a dumb (sometimes very dumb) voice-controlled terminal interface to a computer. It's much easier to dictate what to do on a commandline than on a picture-based interface.


You are a Career Criminal. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by elenchos on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 12:59:52 AM PST
You have admitted many times that you have no respect for any law, and that you make it your business to commit hack attacks, and to encourage others to hack. Were you ever to come to the United States, or be extradited here, I would expect you to be convicted under one of our many statutes amimed at giving incorrigable career criminals mandatory life sentences.

You may think you are safe now inside the former Soviet Union, but Osam bin Laden thought the same thing didn't he? And where is he now?

Regardless, it amazes me that a criminal hacker like you would try to use yourself as an example. You are part of the problem.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Time to refute this drivel. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by because it isnt on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 03:50:15 AM PST
You have admitted many times that you have no respect for any law.

This is an outright lie. Please take your lies where they'll be appreciated.

Were you ever to come to the United States, or be extradited here, I would expect you to be convicted under one of our many statutes amimed at giving incorrigable career criminals mandatory life sentences.

Hah! Ain't it grand! Only today, Hypermints were put on the list of class-A controlled substances, here in dear old Blighty. Possession of these little beauties carries a 7 year sentence, and any intent to supply will have you slammed in chokey for life.

That's right, Ref' - stick to your criminal's paradise, the rest of the world sees you as the druggie you are.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Don't take this out on Hypermints, you terrorist. (none / 0) (#56)
by elenchos on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 11:55:28 AM PST
Hypermints, while certainly quite potent, are perfectly legal. They are known to be very healthy, as opposed to those other hacker mints with their carcinogenic artifical sweeteners.

Instead of telling pathetic lies about a fine product like Hypermints, why don't you put up or shut up? Why don't you find me a replacement fan for a Macintosh Apple for example? Why don't you show me one single legitimate use that a normal, healthy, regular user would have for groping packets or tel-netting?

Or else admit you are in the presence of wiser men than yourself and try to learn from us, instead of these futile attempts to dispute plain facts.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


I think... (none / 0) (#57)
by budlite on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 12:22:18 PM PST
...a wise person at least bothers to think outside the scope of AOL-style propganda.


 
Macs and stuff. (none / 0) (#61)
by because it isnt on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 04:55:54 AM PST
Why don't you find me a replacement fan for a Macintosh Apple for example?

Will this do? You don't say which kind of Mac, but I'm assuming it's an old one as Macs are of extremely high build quality, and you would have phoned up AppleCare by now if it was a recent Apple model. If you have trouble finding a genuine Apple part, you may have to resort to visiting your nearest electronics store and buying an identically sized fan with the same power rating.

If it's the power supply fan, replace the whole power supply. It's not worth the risk to just replace the fan.

Why don't you show me one single legitimate use that a normal, healthy, regular user would have for groping packets or tel-netting?

There are many entertaining games available exclusively via the tel-net. You might as well demand that X-Boxes and PlayStation 2s be banned, with that authoritarian attitude of yours.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Learn what? (none / 0) (#66)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 03:33:00 AM PST
You obviously know nothing about computers, and appear warped and twisted in other areas aswell. What exactly do you know? that you can pay me to overcharge you on somthing you should know how to do your self.


 
Is it good or bad? (none / 0) (#60)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 04:02:45 PM PST
You have admitted many times that you have no respect for any law, and that you make it your business to commit hack attacks, and to encourage others to hack.

Respect for laws? They would have to be respectable at first.

Were you ever to come to the United States, or be extradited here, I would expect you to be convicted under one of our many statutes amimed at giving incorrigable career criminals mandatory life sentences.

At least I'd finally have time to study molecular biology.

You may think you are safe now inside the former Soviet Union, but Osam bin Laden thought the same thing didn't he? And where is he now?

Well, that's the question!

Regardless, it amazes me that a criminal hacker like you would try to use yourself as an example.

It's the example I am the most familiar with.

You are part of the problem.

And proud of it!


 
No (none / 0) (#52)
by budlite on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 06:24:36 AM PST
Overprotective producers of bloatware don't offer shell accounts. But my University gives all students one. I have a couple of external ones too. Very useful they are as well.


Reading. Crazy. (none / 0) (#53)
by because it isnt on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 06:57:57 AM PST
Come round to the old Oxford Road and pay me a visit sometime. Anything that keeps you away from Kevin Warwick is a good thing.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

no point (none / 0) (#54)
by budlite on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 07:40:13 AM PST
There was only one lecture left for him to give me, and that's been cancelled for him to have yet another chip implanted. Then again, most of his lectures have been cancelled for the same reason.

I might still take you up on that offer though :)


 
You dum MF (none / 0) (#65)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 03:27:24 AM PST
By regular users do you mean the ignorant majority, who keep professionals like me in bussiness. What I do isn't hard, and people who know anything about computers (unlike you) have little need for us.

But hay you dumb asses keep me rich... Fuck your computers all you want.. I've got a hefty invoice waiting for you.


 
example of "illegal tool" and your stupi (none / 0) (#43)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 03:55:34 PM PST
Let's say you just got setup with a nice DSL connection (this is for example purposes only). Three days after the tech leaves you have problems connecting to website. What do you do? Well in your case because you obviously know nothing you call tech for your ISP. Here's the steps he/she will walk you through (if the person is any good). Note: This is a very generalized process. You are using Windows.

Ok let's find out what the problem is

1. Go through various reinstallation of netwrok drivers and TCP/IP setup.

2. Open command prompt

3. Ping the local loopback (ping 127.0.0.1). Basically this means you make the NIC ping itself. This will test if TCP/IP is setup correctly.

3. Ping yourself. This means that you must use ipconfig to find out you IP address. Ping that.

4. Ping a remote host on the network segment. Only if you have more than one computer in your house for example that is connected to the network.

5. Ping the default gateway

6. Ping a remote system outside of your netwrk (ie www.microsoft.com or adequacy.org). Only 4 echos will be sent with each being only 32bytes. Hardly enough to cause problems with these sites.

Ok you've gotten through #5 but you can't get #6. Using ping you have localized the problem. The tech support guy cannot do this for you. It must be done from your system as you have the problem. So what is the problem? Using ping you found that the problem is with your ISP. If you put some thought into you can assume it's with one of their routers.

Free tool included with Windows can do all that. These tools will remain in Windows. If MS wanted to remove them they would. It's kind of hard to "hide" them when everyone knows they're their (except you because you're stupid and paranoid).


Micro-Soft does not give away free tools. (none / 0) (#45)
by elenchos on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 04:39:48 PM PST
You must be thinking of some defunct company like Loki, or some soon to be defunct company like VA Software. Giving away free tools is pure communism, and would be a betrayal of Micro-Soft's stockholders.

And as has been mentioned many times, a legitimate ISP would never offer the kind of hacker services you mention.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


did you pull that out of your ass? (none / 0) (#47)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 09:47:32 PM PST
Giving away free tools is pure communism, and would be a betrayal of Micro-Soft's stockholders.

Yes it's nothing like how they gave away Internet Explorer (even while it was infringing on another companies copyright of the name) or plan to give away .NET now is it? Besides you do pay for them (ping, tracert, telnet) as they are included in the OS. I mean you guys love that, they give it away argument in favor of IE. No you pay for it. It's included in the price. Netscape is free and so is Opera (ad version).

And as has been mentioned many times, a legitimate ISP would never offer the kind of hacker services you mention.

What tech support? ISP aren't offering you ping, tracert, and telnet. They are already on your system when you install Windows (no "illegal hacking" necessary).

Sorry, didn't mean to kill your entire argument. However, I hope you learned that just because you don't understand something doesn't make it bad, Mr. Computer Scientist (HAHA).


You have nothing to apologize for. (none / 0) (#48)
by elenchos on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 12:04:51 AM PST
Bringing up Netscape and Opera to argue that Micro-Soft gives away free tools does not "destroy" any argument. The choices made by those other companies hardly determines anything about Micro-Soft. And this is not an argument, it is a lecture.

You are deeply confused about Inter Net Explorer and those other tools. Explorer is not given away, it is an integrated part of the Windows Operating System. It would make no sense to charge separately for it, since you can't have Windows without Inter Net Explorer. Anyone who is a Windows Power User, as I am, can appreciate that. Perhaps you are not familiar enough with the advanced features of Windows with Inter Net Explorer to realize this.

Now with those illegal terrorism tools, you have it exactly backwards. They are not part of Windows at all -- if they were, why aren't they on the Start Menu? Clearly Micro-Soft does not wish its customers to have them; if they did, why aren't they on the Start Menu where they would belong? Granted, removing them from the Start Menu turned out to be poor security (I was as surprised by this as anyone, by the way, so I don't blame Micro-Soft for the mistake), but less-than-perfect security is not at all the same as an invitation. You are like a rapist who uses the "mini-skirt defense".

I'm beginning to see that those who are obsessed with attacking this software company Micro-Soft for all the problems in their lives just don't have a very good grasp of how Windows is used.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Your not very bright, r u? (none / 0) (#64)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 07:55:38 PM PST
you can put ping on your start menu if you want. the reason it's not is because you need to use a command line arguement to use ping properly. same w/ telnet, etc.


 
It's too good to be true... (none / 0) (#67)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 03:41:39 AM PST
Oh..... A windows power user, right out of the XP tutorial...

Can I send you my card, business is a little slow at the moment, I'd love to fix the problems in your computer.

I must discourage you from using windows update in the mean time though. Only a professional should oversee the installing of any software, esspecially the 10^99 bug fixes in the Windows OS's.


 
ur not very bright r u? (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 05:06:16 PM PST
if you ever buy a imac cube put a book on it for me.


 
ooh! (none / 0) (#39)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 01:56:18 PM PST
You are TOO much!

click your "Start" button.

now type in "telnet www.adequacy.org 25" and press enter.

now be damned if the same thing doesn't come up.

btw, you haven't even bothered to comment on how adequacy rund on Apache and sendmail, rather than IIS and Exchange server. I suppose the technical info was too much for you.

By the way, since when was it illegal to look at what your browser sees? I like the term "licenced legal HTTP renderer". That's quite funny. Escpecially because upon inspection the phrase doesn't make any sense.

"licenced": Ok, since when did you have to license software based on RFC manuals? Give you a hint: you dont.

"legal": Currently the only sort of software that is deemed illegal is that which is specifically designed to circumvent security measures. telnet does not do any circumventing. What telnet is meant to do is connect you to a telnet server for things such as remote administration of a website after proper authorization.

"HTTP": yah. a browser doesn't render HTTP. it transports and recieves data over it. What a browser renders is HTML, which is a language rather than a protocol.

"renderer": hmm? are you talking about 3d graphics? While the term is technically valid, for documents, an interpreter usually called a viewer.

Lastly: did you see me issuing any commands to the SMTP port other than "QUIT"? no. In order to send e-mail, I have to issue the following command sequence:

HELO server
MAiL FROM: source@email.bla
RCPT TO: dest@email.bla
DATA
[header]

[message]
.
QUIT

Furthermore, since I don't have an e-mail account with adequacy.org, their SMTP server is useless for spam. External mailing is usually blocked to outsiders (I haven't bothered to check, myself), and thus I'd have to send to people @ adequacy.org.

The problem there is that to open, read, and delete a piece of SPAM, you actually have to have a brain. So far as I've found, none of the people at adequacy are so endowed.

Oh, by the way, you think my activities are illegal? You have my IP address. See if you can prosecute.


 
No, why? (none / 0) (#41)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 02:48:45 PM PST
If the laws are created by morons, only morons can be expected to follow them.


Question. (none / 0) (#55)
by hauntedattics on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 08:23:59 AM PST
Who died and made you Chief Decider of Who is a Moron and thus Who Gets to Create Laws?

Yep, that's right. Nobody.




Answer. (none / 0) (#59)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 03:41:24 PM PST
Who died and made you Chief Decider of Who is a Moron and thus Who Gets to Create Laws?

None. But I still have a brain and can see a stupid law when I look at it. I am my own Chief Decider of what one I will respect and what one I will ignore.


Oh, OK. (none / 0) (#62)
by hauntedattics on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 12:26:36 PM PST
Wow, I'm my own Chief Decider too. On my way home from work yesterday, I decided that the 'stop my car at a red light' law was stupid and inconvenient, and therefore I should ignore it. It worked so well! There were only a few casualties and not too many thousands of dollars in property damage. Plus I got home a whole ten minutes earlier than usual, so it was worth it.

Like, dude, what planet are you living on? Get a grip, dude. Dude!




The magic... (2.50 / 2) (#63)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 06:26:39 PM PST
...of ignoring the laws is to know when you can afford it. To act consistently the same way with laws as without them.

Your comment reveals only that you were stupid enough to not actually look before going through the red light if you can afford to go. The red light laws aren't worth of respect. The moving cars are. When you have clear vision of enough of the road on all the sides, and there is no car there approaching, the red light is irrelevant. When there is no visibility, it becomes a worthy indicator of safe pass.

Taking laws as irrelevant and taking the Reality as a guideline set instead is the only way how to cope in today's society with too many laws. Can you name even a tenth of them? No? How can you be expected to respect and follow all of them then?


My point... (none / 0) (#68)
by hauntedattics on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 11:08:19 AM PST
which you appear to have missed, was that if everyone decided for themselves what laws they did and didn't have to follow, the consequences would be dire and severe.

And what do you mean by knowing when you can 'afford' to break laws? Do you mean, break the law when you know you can get away with it? When you know it will bring you monetary gain? When you know it will increase your convenience? Where do you draw the line in all this? I hate to use the words 'slippery slope,' but...

I can't even hope to name a tenth of the laws that exist in our society, but then the large majority don't apply to me as a private citizen. There's no need to know every single law, and to suggest that you need to know them all in order to follow the ones that do apply to you is ludicrous.

(By the way, I live in a large, populous and non-gridded city where the driving is challenging enough without people making their own rules. I'd run through red lights at my and everyone else's peril. And knowing that is a key part of being a citizen in a civil society.)




Well... (none / 0) (#69)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 06:30:46 PM PST
which you appear to have missed, was that if everyone decided for themselves what laws they did and didn't have to follow, the consequences would be dire and severe.

But at least the world wouldn't get dead-boring.

And what do you mean by knowing when you can 'afford' to break laws? Do you mean, break the law when you know you can get away with it?

Yep. When nobody can ever figure out, the law becomes completely irrelevant.

When you know it will bring you monetary gain?

Possibly, but you have to carefully weigh risks and losses.

When you know it will increase your convenience?

When it will not cause significant risk or losses, why not?

Where do you draw the line in all this? I hate to use the words 'slippery slope,' but...

When the gut feeling tells me I am risking too much. If it doesn't measurably endanger lives or safety, anything goes.

I can't even hope to name a tenth of the laws that exist in our society, but then the large majority don't apply to me as a private citizen. There's no need to know every single law, and to suggest that you need to know them all in order to follow the ones that do apply to you is ludicrous.

Well... can you name all the ones that apply to you? Are you sure you don't miss any?

(By the way, I live in a large, populous and non-gridded city where the driving is challenging enough without people making their own rules. I'd run through red lights at my and everyone else's peril. And knowing that is a key part of being a citizen in a civil society.)

I don't drive myself. But I do electrical installations (which I by law don't have papers to do - which I consider irrelevant as long as I keep all the insulation distances and other parameters at least what they should be), I use radio frequencies (when there isn't anything you can interfere with within the transmitter range you can transmit as you want, similarly what harm you can do when you listen on a "forbidden" band), I play with the computers (what harm you can do when you decompile and read "forbidden" code and learn one more trick), I do many more such things for both fun and profit... As far nobody ever complained and many came for more.


 
your not very bright (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 08:11:41 PM PST
Even if it was bad only crappy servers run windows.

Adequacy.org runs Microsoft IIS 5.0 on Windows 2000 servers. Surely you are not calling Adequacy.org a "crappy server" - that is an obvious trollish statement and is grounds to get you banned from this site forever.


well your site is the slowest i've been to - even tho it runs apache on unix...


 
that excuse might work on slashdot (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 11:28:15 PM PST
where few understand technology, but it most certainly wont work on adequacy unless by 'work' you mean 'earn derision.'

Pinging a server simply means that you are seeing how long it takes for a packet to reach the server from your computer.

Why do you need to measure the latency of a web server? You obviously dont, unless you mean to increase the latency by pinging it to death? I suggest you are criminal.


Your not very bright, r u? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 10:24:53 PM PST
to see why the website is going so slow, or in gaming - to find the fastest playable server.


yes but (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 01:46:35 AM PST
wouldnt it be better to ping a game server? And ping wont tell you why a website is slow. In these days of php and jsp and asp and database back ends and what not, ping wont even tell you why it's latency might be long. Ping is useless for diagnosing web sites. If the page doesnt load, what the fuck do you think its admins are doing -- waiting for some anonymous Lunix Network Admin with ping to come to their rescue?


doubt it (none / 0) (#58)
by DG on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 02:28:17 PM PST
most likely they are doing some other network things, by the way ping is used to see if the server works , you can't use ping to see if pages work, ie you can ping an ip and see if it responds to the ping.. seeing as html has very little to do with base networking.. don't believe that the internet is just the web it's more than that.. i figure for someone who talks about "lunix" and hacking thats all anyone should want to know about ping, oh well if you don't wanna try to understand that much fine with me
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
If only... (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 02:54:59 AM PST
Both GUNzip (named by ESR to reflect both his bizzare obsession with firearms and his desire to plagiarise the efforts of WINzip) and SSH use 1024-bit encryption. Export of software using this level of encryption is restricted to nations who have signed the Wassenaar agreement. Free software irresponsibly sidesteps this restriction, and by doing so puts the stability of the free world at risk. In all likelihood, known terrorists are using this software right now, laughing in the face of law enforcement agencies, preparing for the destruction of all things we hold dear.

I hope you can sleep with yourself at night.


Attn osm: your lies, etc. (none / 0) (#7)
by because it isnt on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 03:23:13 AM PST
One of your lies is so good, it's funny.
plagiarise the efforts of WINzip

From the WinZip acknowledgements page:
Thanks to Jean-loup Gailly for permission to use portions of his gzip source in WinZip. The original sources to gzip are available on the Internet as prep.ai.mit.edu:/pub/gnu/gzip-*.tar.
The rest of your lies aren't funny, sadly.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

In fact (none / 0) (#9)
by budlite on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 06:01:00 AM PST
The compression methods used by gzip and WinZip are not one and the same. Try unzipping a standard zip file created with WinZip with gunzip. Won't work. That's why there's the nice zip and unzip program.


Why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing (none / 0) (#12)
by because it isnt on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 06:58:41 AM PST
The compression methods used by gzip and WinZip are not one and the same. Try unzipping a standard zip file created with WinZip with gunzip. Won't work. That's why there's the nice zip and unzip program.


adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Fair enough (none / 0) (#13)
by budlite on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 07:06:27 AM PST
All well and good, and you evidently know more about the subject than I do, I suppose my post was more directed at osm. The point I was trying to make is that although Winzip and gzip (combined with tar) can perform the same basic tasks, they're not the same thing. In other words, I was trying to correct osm's delusions that gzip is *intended* to compete in some way with commercial, more well-known archiving software such as PKZip and Winzip, which I doubt is the case.


History (1.00 / 1) (#14)
by because it isnt on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 08:13:23 AM PST
The point I was trying to make is that although Winzip and gzip (combined with tar) can perform the same basic tasks, they're not the same thing. In other words, I was trying to correct osm's delusions that gzip is *intended* to compete in some way with commercial, more well-known archiving software such as PKZip and Winzip, which I doubt is the case.

Here's some more history for you. Terry Welch invented a variant of the Lempel-Ziv compression method to allow compression in high-speed disk controllers. AT&T used this algorithm to write the "compress" / "uncompress" commands for UNIX SVR4. These replaced the previous pack / unpack / pcat commands which simply used Huffman coding.

Thom Henderson took the source of "compress", came up with an archiving file format, and released his ARC program as shareware for the MS-DOS operating system.

Phil Katz took the source of ARC and re-wrote the compression and decompression routines in assembler. He released PKARC / PKXARC from this. Thom (trading as System Enhancement Associates) was happy about this until Phil released PKARC commercially and advertised the product with disparaging comparisons to ARC. SEA sued PKWARE for copyright infringement. They settled something or other out of court. Phil somehow commanded the respect of the BBS community, because the evil giant megacorp SEA (employees: Thom and his wife) sued the innocent plagiarist dirty-trickster alcoholic loner Katz.

Phil then wrote PKPAK, then PKZIP. He placed the ZIP name, file format, and compression algorithm in the public domain. Sysops converted their ARC archives to ZIP archives en-masse.

However, so far PKZIP only existed for MS-DOS. The Info-ZIP team formed to make a portable ZIP archiver.

Seeing a need to offer generalised compression to programmers, Adler and Gailly extracted the deflate/inflate routines from Info-ZIP's work, and created the infamous zlib library.

Later still, Stallman et al realised they needed a compress(1) knockoff for their GNU UNIX-replacement, but they couldn't just use compress(1) because it used the patent-encumbered LZW algorithm. Gailly offered zlib, and they came up with a simple, standard format around that compression routine to produce gzip, GNU's version of compress(1).

So basically, there is lots of software, commercial and non-commercial, that uses the public domain ZIP standards. Any "competing" they do is not in any way related to the basic ZIP file format or deflate algorithm that they rely upon, which are also the only things that link them all together.

Funny, huh?
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Wassenaar my posterior. (none / 0) (#8)
by The Mad Scientist on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 05:26:23 AM PST
Export of software using this level of encryption is restricted to nations who have signed the Wassenaar agreement. Free software irresponsibly sidesteps this restriction, and by doing so puts the stability of the free world at risk.

Heh. The precious world that has the balls to call itself free.

I don't think anyone other than me should have any ultimate jurisdiction over my files. Being it FBI, CIA, MI5, or any of the deities. It's me who rightfully has the ultimate say of what of my files will be readable by whom.

If you disagree, tough luck - the technology sings my song.


 
Please stop hacking. (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 08:38:11 PM PST
Excessive use of hyphenation and randomly distributing commas throughout your prose does not add credibility to your protestations.

Good luck in beating (no pun intended) your masturbation problem. Simply remember: God is watching, and probably unimpressed at your self-degradation.








 
You people are morons (none / 0) (#36)
by cangeceiro on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 01:36:04 PM PST
From reading around this site i have found that you are all morons, you are the people that find the computer as a nice "hobby" get an mcse and then think you rule the world.
illegal activities such as 'pinging' Microsoft web-servers
what is illegal about pinging a server.
dangerous tools that malicious users like, such as ping, ssh, and xemacs
have you ever tryed opening up a dos box in windows and type ping. Yeah it has ping. I work at an isp and i use ping all the time. And its not for hacking. It tells me if can even get out on a connection. Yeah it helps fix things. Stop the press on that one. And ssh, some of you people have no consept of what anything even is, have you ever been to the OpenSSH webpage to find out what it is. It is a secure telnet client to KEEP HACKERS OUT. or maybe that blew by a few of you. I use it so that i can remotly run all of my BSD servers at home, and we use it internally so we can (here is that keyword again) FIX THINGS. As for xemacs i dont use it i prefer vi. But they are text editors. Nothing bad about that. Do you guys freak out when someone uses notepad. And yes IIS sucks


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.