Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #350884 > unrolled thread
| Started by | 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-19 21:54 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-04-26 19:54 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 443 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-19 21:54 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-19 15:02 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-19 22:13 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye brexit insanity <aslsfijasslkjfhwe22jads@oasdfasfs.org> - 2016-04-19 22:22 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-19 15:44 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-19 17:47 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-20 21:51 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-20 15:06 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-20 15:27 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-21 12:13 -0500
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-21 20:13 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-21 12:02 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-21 13:15 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-21 13:52 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-21 15:03 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 00:04 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 10:13 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 01:25 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 14:22 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-22 07:35 -0500
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 09:27 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 23:21 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 14:38 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 00:03 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 00:23 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:33 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 01:00 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 16:13 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 02:07 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:15 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 02:34 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:37 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 02:56 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 18:06 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 03:29 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 18:32 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 03:46 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 18:49 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 03:55 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:08 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 12:32 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 12:34 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-23 08:08 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 09:23 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 09:22 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 09:41 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 09:53 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 09:33 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 10:01 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 10:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 11:13 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 11:34 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 12:20 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 10:52 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 16:01 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-24 13:36 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-24 16:36 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 23:28 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 12:05 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 12:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 12:12 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 12:18 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 12:35 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 12:58 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 13:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 13:17 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 13:20 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 14:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 14:31 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 23:28 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-24 17:37 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-23 20:00 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 23:38 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-24 15:58 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 10:33 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-24 18:52 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 12:00 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-24 19:31 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 12:37 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-24 21:12 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 12:48 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-25 22:14 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 15:43 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-25 23:07 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 16:15 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 02:13 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 19:38 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 02:46 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 19:50 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 19:49 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 02:57 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 19:59 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 03:35 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 20:46 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 03:58 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 21:03 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 04:13 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 21:22 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 04:41 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 21:50 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 05:09 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 22:13 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 05:39 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 22:41 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 05:58 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 22:59 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 06:06 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-26 08:52 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 09:35 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-26 09:38 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 09:48 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-26 09:54 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 09:56 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-26 10:04 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 16:57 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-26 10:13 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 05:38 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-27 00:37 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 05:29 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-27 00:36 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 14:18 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-27 20:06 -0600
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-28 04:15 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-28 15:32 -0600
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-26 06:25 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 21:28 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-26 06:37 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 21:49 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-26 06:58 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 22:12 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-24 15:11 -0600
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 12:52 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-25 13:35 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 13:43 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-25 18:16 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-25 15:20 -0600
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 14:58 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-26 15:48 -0600
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:45 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 00:59 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 16:13 -0700
Plonk Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:57 -0400
Re: Plonk "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 20:15 -0400
Re: Plonk Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 21:02 -0400
Keep talking Chris Ahlstrom Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:19 -0400
Re: Plonk "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 17:46 -0400
Re: Plonk Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 23:30 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:32 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 09:26 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:30 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 16:32 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 04:55 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-27 00:35 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-27 04:01 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 05:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 06:06 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 07:04 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 08:04 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 08:30 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 09:56 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 10:28 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 12:44 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 13:44 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 14:19 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 13:07 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 16:38 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 14:36 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 18:07 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 15:20 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:48 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 20:44 -0400
"Richand King", yet another nym of a long-time troll Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 21:00 -0400
Ask Chris Ahlstrom about.... Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:22 -0400
Re: "Richand King", yet another nym of a long-time troll chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-25 07:48 -0500
Re: "Richand King", yet another nym of a long-time troll William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-25 14:07 +0100
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 19:04 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-22 22:53 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 23:24 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-23 13:35 +0100
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-23 08:04 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-25 07:33 -0500
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-25 10:14 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 10:50 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-25 10:53 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 12:01 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-23 08:10 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-23 13:31 +0100
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-25 07:29 -0500
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-25 09:28 -0400
Marek Novotny appreciates the beauty of certain 1990's tech Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:45 -0400
Chris Ahlstrom Makes an ASS of himself again Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:11 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny appreciates the beauty of certain 1990's tech William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-23 13:30 +0100
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:42 -0400
Chris Ahlstrom... Asshole of the year. Just ask Jayne Ahlstrom, his wife. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:07 -0400
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 18:29 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 03:32 +0200
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 19:40 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 05:15 +0200
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 20:31 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-23 07:28 -0400
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 13:43 +0200
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 06:56 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-23 14:27 -0400
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 11:46 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-24 17:49 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-24 18:35 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-23 14:26 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 09:42 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 10:26 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 12:45 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 14:08 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 14:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 14:54 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 15:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:16 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 16:01 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 16:18 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:59 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:04 -0700
A Big Appil beam in his eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:55 -0400
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:03 -0700
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 21:01 -0400
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 18:07 -0700
Chris Ahlstrom's Obsession With People He Claims to Have Filtered. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:18 -0400
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-04-22 20:52 -0500
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:08 -0700
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 20:11 -0400
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:15 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 12:54 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 14:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 14:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 20:02 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:03 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 13:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 14:25 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 14:26 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 14:46 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:03 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 15:14 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:17 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-21 22:16 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-21 20:23 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-21 12:53 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-21 23:07 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-21 19:44 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-21 23:58 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 10:10 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 01:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-22 10:58 +0100
The Appil of my eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 05:40 -0400
Re: The Appil of my eye Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-22 11:02 +0100
Re: The Appil of my eye Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-22 11:44 +0100
Re: The Appil of my eye frederick <fakeemail@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 00:31 +0100
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 09:25 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 15:09 -0400
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 12:31 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 22:57 +0200
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 13:58 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:53 -0400
Re: The Appil of my eye Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-25 11:11 +0100
Re: The Appil of my eye chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-25 07:18 -0500
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 19:40 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:52 -0400
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:02 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 21:03 -0400
Chris Ahlstrom a Pansy... Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:15 -0400
Re: The Appil of my eye JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-04-22 20:55 -0500
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:39 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:34 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 02:51 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-23 10:04 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 06:46 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 09:26 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 09:50 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-19 19:40 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-20 21:10 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-21 12:07 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-20 16:42 +0100
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-21 12:16 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye frederick <fakeemail@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 21:42 +0100
A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Drummer"<drummer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 05:17 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 06:02 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 07:01 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 07:20 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 07:28 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 07:56 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 08:02 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 08:16 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 08:46 -0700
His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-26 20:41 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 14:21 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 14:24 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 18:27 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 15:37 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 18:55 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 16:48 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 16:55 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 17:09 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-26 20:36 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 10:11 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 00:07 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 17:11 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 00:18 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 17:29 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 00:38 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 17:47 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 01:03 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 18:10 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 01:26 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 18:37 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 02:48 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-27 06:25 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 07:49 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 14:54 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 08:11 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 07:59 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 16:33 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 08:52 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 17:35 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-27 15:57 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 13:10 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 10:07 -0500
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 10:19 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 20:59 +0200
Thing Digest chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 14:33 -0500
Re: Thing Digest vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 20:18 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:05 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 00:14 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:23 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 00:42 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:51 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-27 20:32 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:59 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 02:40 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 10:18 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 14:00 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 07:57 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 16:37 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 09:03 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 13:07 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 17:45 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 16:23 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 10:24 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 10:30 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 11:18 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 12:26 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 12:46 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 20:15 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 13:33 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 21:31 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 14:35 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 14:54 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 14:42 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 23:51 +0200
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 15:00 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 21:53 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 14:59 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 15:35 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 20:34 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 13:48 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 23:29 +0200
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 14:36 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 23:48 +0200
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 15:01 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 15:49 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 23:12 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 17:27 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 23:12 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 23:18 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 17:25 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 00:53 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:06 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 01:33 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:50 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 02:03 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 19:26 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 05:23 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 23:44 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 07:14 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 00:42 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 08:26 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-28 10:11 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 06:48 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 06:46 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 23:48 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 17:00 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-28 06:34 -0500
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 20:49 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 13:51 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 17:29 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:54 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:04 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 01:13 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:26 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 01:32 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:45 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 02:12 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 19:26 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:46 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 02:11 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 19:29 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 02:58 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:03 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 03:19 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:35 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 10:47 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:46 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 02:04 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 19:30 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 03:00 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:08 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 03:29 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:41 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 09:09 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 19:28 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 13:43 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-28 10:12 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 07:24 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 10:31 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 13:54 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 14:10 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 23:21 +0200
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 14:30 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-28 09:54 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 11:21 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 11:48 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 09:10 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-28 09:53 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-27 20:11 -0600
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 02:11 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 02:48 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 10:17 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 07:21 -0500
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 11:48 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-26 20:37 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 00:45 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 10:49 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-26 20:01 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 02:19 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 07:26 -0500
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 09:48 -0500
A Big anti-Linux K00k Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-26 19:54 -0400
Page 5 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 23 Next page →
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-24 21:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ngmbnjvi83.gfhv2v1vngh@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #351654 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2016-04-24 12:31 PM, owl wrote: >>> >> >> Who knows? But you are just guessing. >> >> > > No. I'm not. > > I'm using logic. > What "logic"? > But remember: this was never about whether the user could create > arbitrary hard links to directories. > Sure it is. On OS X it's possible. On Linux it's not possible. > This was about one of you linux fanatics declaring "OSX is crap" and > saying that using hard linked directories was an example of this. > Well, you're welcome to compile the code above on your Mac and use it to prove that the problems outlined earlier in this thread are not relevant. > But the truth is, whether you can right a userland program to create > them or not, Linuxes, Unix and Mac OS X (which is a Unix) OSs all create > directory hard links in the file system. The systems do that in the form of "." and "..". OS X allows a user to create arbitrary directory hard links.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 12:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nflsan$r7j$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351667 |
On 2016-04-24 2:12 PM, owl wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2016-04-24 12:31 PM, owl wrote: > >>>> >>> >>> Who knows? But you are just guessing. >>> >>> >> >> No. I'm not. >> >> I'm using logic. >> > > What "logic"? The logic that says you don't design as system to move a linked directory to a special hidden directory without having a reason to add that to the design. > > >> But remember: this was never about whether the user could create >> arbitrary hard links to directories. >> > > Sure it is. On OS X it's possible. On Linux it's not possible. Nope. That may be the case, but it isn't what was actually under discussion. > > >> This was about one of you linux fanatics declaring "OSX is crap" and >> saying that using hard linked directories was an example of this. >> > > Well, you're welcome to compile the code above on your Mac and use > it to prove that the problems outlined earlier in this thread are > not relevant. Whether I do or not won't change the fact that a Linux fanatic was declaring the Mac OS X was "dangerous" because the OPERATING SYSTEM made use of hard-linked directories for Time Machine. > > >> But the truth is, whether you can right a userland program to create >> them or not, Linuxes, Unix and Mac OS X (which is a Unix) OSs all create >> directory hard links in the file system. > > The systems do that in the form of "." and "..". OS X allows a > user to create arbitrary directory hard links. No, actually. Even if you do it, there are restrictions on how and where you can do it. But moreover, it's a strawman... ...because the subject was TIME MACHINE'S use of them... ...and that's not the user. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 22:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <shjgd03.afa@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #351808 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2016-04-24 2:12 PM, owl wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2016-04-24 12:31 PM, owl wrote: >> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Who knows? But you are just guessing. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> No. I'm not. >>> >>> I'm using logic. >>> >> >> What "logic"? > > The logic that says you don't design as system to move a linked > directory to a special hidden directory without having a reason to add > that to the design. > How is that a "logical" assumption when they did the following with mere *file* hardlinks: http://osxbook.com/blog/2008/11/09/hfsdebug-40-and-new-hfs-features/ <quote> $ ln file1 file2 ... We see that a lot has changed! The on-disk nature of file1 has completely transformed. The original content has actually “moved” to an indirect-node file. What was file1 before has been replaced with a new directory entry altogether: one that has a new file ID within the file system. The new directory entry is also a file, but with several special properties. Its “type” and “creator” (as stored in the Finder Info) are hlnk and hfs+, respectively. It has been marked immutable. It has no content in either its data fork or its resource fork. Moreover, the owner and group ID on-disk fields have been repurposed to act as the previous and next links, respectively, in the hard link chain. We see that the previous link ID is 1927095. Let us use HFSDebug to show us information for that ID. </quote> >> >> >>> But remember: this was never about whether the user could create >>> arbitrary hard links to directories. >>> >> >> Sure it is. On OS X it's possible. On Linux it's not possible. > > Nope. That may be the case, but it isn't what was actually under discussion. > That has been under discussion for a while in this thread, and you've been arguing that it's not true. >> >> >>> This was about one of you linux fanatics declaring "OSX is crap" and >>> saying that using hard linked directories was an example of this. >>> >> >> Well, you're welcome to compile the code above on your Mac and use >> it to prove that the problems outlined earlier in this thread are >> not relevant. > > Whether I do or not won't change the fact that a Linux fanatic was > declaring the Mac OS X was "dangerous" because the OPERATING SYSTEM made > use of hard-linked directories for Time Machine. > The only danger I've ever heard mentioned in any discussion of this is that Apple's implementation allows a *user* to create directory hardlinks. >> >> >>> But the truth is, whether you can right a userland program to create >>> them or not, Linuxes, Unix and Mac OS X (which is a Unix) OSs all create >>> directory hard links in the file system. >> >> The systems do that in the form of "." and "..". OS X allows a >> user to create arbitrary directory hard links. > > No, actually. Even if you do it, there are restrictions on how and where > you can do it. > > But moreover, it's a strawman... > There is no strawman just because things get brought up in a discussion which you would rather had not been brought up. > ...because the subject was TIME MACHINE'S use of them... > What "subject"? The subject of this thread has something to do with dicks and eyes. > ...and that's not the user. > > :-) > You continual reference to TIME MACHINE is a strawman.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 15:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfm6i9$dqr$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351833 |
On 2016-04-25 3:14 PM, owl wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2016-04-24 2:12 PM, owl wrote: >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 2016-04-24 12:31 PM, owl wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Who knows? But you are just guessing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> No. I'm not. >>>> >>>> I'm using logic. >>>> >>> >>> What "logic"? >> >> The logic that says you don't design as system to move a linked >> directory to a special hidden directory without having a reason to add >> that to the design. >> > > How is that a "logical" assumption when they did the following with > mere *file* hardlinks: > > http://osxbook.com/blog/2008/11/09/hfsdebug-40-and-new-hfs-features/ > <quote> > $ ln file1 file2 > ... > We see that a lot has changed! The on-disk nature of file1 has completely > transformed. The original content has actually “moved” to an > indirect-node file. What was file1 before has been replaced with a new > directory entry altogether: one that has a new file ID within the file > system. The new directory entry is also a file, but with several special > properties. Its “type” and “creator” (as stored in the Finder > Info) are hlnk and hfs+, respectively. It has been marked immutable. It > has no content in either its data fork or its resource fork. Moreover, > the owner and group ID on-disk fields have been repurposed to act as > the previous and next links, respectively, in the hard link chain. We > see that the previous link ID is 1927095. Let us use HFSDebug to show > us information for that ID. > </quote> Only trouble is... ...that information is badly out of date. > > >>> >>> >>>> But remember: this was never about whether the user could create >>>> arbitrary hard links to directories. >>>> >>> >>> Sure it is. On OS X it's possible. On Linux it's not possible. >> >> Nope. That may be the case, but it isn't what was actually under discussion. >> > > That has been under discussion for a while in this thread, and you've > been arguing that it's not true. Nope. I've been arguing: 1. That it's not really germane to the question of whether or not what Time Machine does makes sense or not. 2. That while they're not to be used without understanding the dangers, they do have their uses, as demonstrated by the fact that other OSes include facilities for their creation... ...INCLUDING Linux in some instances (read the man page for ln). 2a. That there are lots of things in an OS that aren't advisable for a user to do arbitrarily but that nevertheless still have valid uses and existence. 3. That while it may be technically possible for a Mac OS X user to create them, there are constraints and safeguards in place to at least reduce the possible negative outcomes associated with doing so. > >>> >>> >>>> This was about one of you linux fanatics declaring "OSX is crap" and >>>> saying that using hard linked directories was an example of this. >>>> >>> >>> Well, you're welcome to compile the code above on your Mac and use >>> it to prove that the problems outlined earlier in this thread are >>> not relevant. >> >> Whether I do or not won't change the fact that a Linux fanatic was >> declaring the Mac OS X was "dangerous" because the OPERATING SYSTEM made >> use of hard-linked directories for Time Machine. >> > > The only danger I've ever heard mentioned in any discussion of this > is that Apple's implementation allows a *user* to create directory > hardlinks. Perhaps you should read more carefully: Which isn't nearly as powerful as rsync. In fact, it is a desktop user tool, and dangerous as well. It uses hardlinked directories, which is forbidden for well known reasons in all of unix land. Naturally apple knows better..." > >>> >>> >>>> But the truth is, whether you can right a userland program to create >>>> them or not, Linuxes, Unix and Mac OS X (which is a Unix) OSs all create >>>> directory hard links in the file system. >>> >>> The systems do that in the form of "." and "..". OS X allows a >>> user to create arbitrary directory hard links. >> >> No, actually. Even if you do it, there are restrictions on how and where >> you can do it. >> >> But moreover, it's a strawman... >> > > There is no strawman just because things get brought up in a discussion > which you would rather had not been brought up. Nope. I would rather have had the discussion stay on topic. > > >> ...because the subject was TIME MACHINE'S use of them... >> > > What "subject"? The subject of this thread has something to do with > dicks and eyes. So when the subject became "OSX is crap" and someone tried to support it with what Time Machine does... ...how does that make a discussion of the userland use of hard linked directories germane? > >> ...and that's not the user. >> >> :-) >> > > You continual reference to TIME MACHINE is a strawman. Nope. Time Machine is literally the only reason that hard linked directories came up. As has now been pointed out numerous times, it is NORMAL for the OS to do things that the user wouldn't necessarily be safe doing, and in specific, that the OS creates at least 2 and often more hard links to every single directory (at least the one named <dirname> residing in its parent directory, plus the "." entry within itself, and then if it has sub-directories, all of their ".." entries). So it is no support at all for the idea that OS X is somehow doing something dangerous with hard linked directories in Time Machine to discuss what users may or may not be allowed to do. Do you want to address yourself to that point or not?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 23:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gjdi03.aaur@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #351842 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > So it is no support at all for the idea that OS X is somehow doing > something dangerous with hard linked directories in Time Machine to > discuss what users may or may not be allowed to do. > > Do you want to address yourself to that point or not? I don't care what Time Machine does or whether or not it is able to tiptoe safely through the minefield of directory hardlinks. The fact remains that OS X allows *users* to create to create directory hardlinks. That is a fatal flaw, and that alone is enough to file OS X under the heading of "Crapware".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 16:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfm8ef$h80$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351850 |
On 2016-04-25 4:07 PM, owl wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> >> So it is no support at all for the idea that OS X is somehow doing >> something dangerous with hard linked directories in Time Machine to >> discuss what users may or may not be allowed to do. >> >> Do you want to address yourself to that point or not? > > I don't care what Time Machine does or whether or not it is able > to tiptoe safely through the minefield of directory hardlinks. > The fact remains that OS X allows *users* to create to create directory > hardlinks. That is a fatal flaw, and that alone is enough to file > OS X under the heading of "Crapware". So go ahead: explain to me exactly how I can create a directory hard link. List the steps. Of course you don't care what Time Machine does. You shut your ears and closed your eyes and focused on a non-problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 02:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjg30a.afaei@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #351853 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2016-04-25 4:07 PM, owl wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> >>> So it is no support at all for the idea that OS X is somehow doing >>> something dangerous with hard linked directories in Time Machine to >>> discuss what users may or may not be allowed to do. >>> >>> Do you want to address yourself to that point or not? >> >> I don't care what Time Machine does or whether or not it is able >> to tiptoe safely through the minefield of directory hardlinks. >> The fact remains that OS X allows *users* to create to create directory >> hardlinks. That is a fatal flaw, and that alone is enough to file >> OS X under the heading of "Crapware". > > So go ahead: explain to me exactly how I can create a directory hard link. > > List the steps. > Maybe you should read the link that you posted, and my earlier post showing a failed attempt to replicate those steps under Linux. The source code is there. The requirements are listed. Do I need to come over and hold your hand? http://osxbook.com/blog/2008/11/09/hfsdebug-40-and-new-hfs-features/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 19:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfmkb2$69s$5@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351880 |
On 2016-04-25 7:13 PM, owl wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2016-04-25 4:07 PM, owl wrote: >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> So it is no support at all for the idea that OS X is somehow doing >>>> something dangerous with hard linked directories in Time Machine to >>>> discuss what users may or may not be allowed to do. >>>> >>>> Do you want to address yourself to that point or not? >>> >>> I don't care what Time Machine does or whether or not it is able >>> to tiptoe safely through the minefield of directory hardlinks. >>> The fact remains that OS X allows *users* to create to create directory >>> hardlinks. That is a fatal flaw, and that alone is enough to file >>> OS X under the heading of "Crapware". >> >> So go ahead: explain to me exactly how I can create a directory hard link. >> >> List the steps. >> > > Maybe you should read the link that you posted, and my earlier post showing > a failed attempt to replicate those steps under Linux. > > The source code is there. The requirements are listed. Do I need to > come over and hold your hand? > > http://osxbook.com/blog/2008/11/09/hfsdebug-40-and-new-hfs-features/ > So you're saying that because someone could WRITE A PROGRAM to do this, this is something that ordinary users can do? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLL But let's address the actual subject under discussion: Given that all Unix-y OSes mandate the creation of directory hard links, will you agree that doing so is not necessarily dangerous? :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 02:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjf0af.fa@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #351882 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2016-04-25 7:13 PM, owl wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2016-04-25 4:07 PM, owl wrote: >>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So it is no support at all for the idea that OS X is somehow doing >>>>> something dangerous with hard linked directories in Time Machine to >>>>> discuss what users may or may not be allowed to do. >>>>> >>>>> Do you want to address yourself to that point or not? >>>> >>>> I don't care what Time Machine does or whether or not it is able >>>> to tiptoe safely through the minefield of directory hardlinks. >>>> The fact remains that OS X allows *users* to create to create directory >>>> hardlinks. That is a fatal flaw, and that alone is enough to file >>>> OS X under the heading of "Crapware". >>> >>> So go ahead: explain to me exactly how I can create a directory hard link. >>> >>> List the steps. >>> >> >> Maybe you should read the link that you posted, and my earlier post showing >> a failed attempt to replicate those steps under Linux. >> >> The source code is there. The requirements are listed. Do I need to >> come over and hold your hand? >> >> http://osxbook.com/blog/2008/11/09/hfsdebug-40-and-new-hfs-features/ >> > > So you're saying that because someone could WRITE A PROGRAM to do this, > this is something that ordinary users can do? > You don't need to write it. It's already written. Just compile it, moron. Or are you too Mactarded to accomplish that simple task? > LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLL > > But let's address the actual subject under discussion: > > Given that all Unix-y OSes mandate the creation of directory hard links, > will you agree that doing so is not necessarily dangerous? > > :-) Are you Snit's defective brother?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 19:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfml1t$6ro$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351884 |
On 2016-04-25 7:46 PM, owl wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2016-04-25 7:13 PM, owl wrote: >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 2016-04-25 4:07 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> So it is no support at all for the idea that OS X is somehow doing >>>>>> something dangerous with hard linked directories in Time Machine to >>>>>> discuss what users may or may not be allowed to do. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you want to address yourself to that point or not? >>>>> >>>>> I don't care what Time Machine does or whether or not it is able >>>>> to tiptoe safely through the minefield of directory hardlinks. >>>>> The fact remains that OS X allows *users* to create to create directory >>>>> hardlinks. That is a fatal flaw, and that alone is enough to file >>>>> OS X under the heading of "Crapware". >>>> >>>> So go ahead: explain to me exactly how I can create a directory hard link. >>>> >>>> List the steps. >>>> >>> >>> Maybe you should read the link that you posted, and my earlier post showing >>> a failed attempt to replicate those steps under Linux. >>> >>> The source code is there. The requirements are listed. Do I need to >>> come over and hold your hand? >>> >>> http://osxbook.com/blog/2008/11/09/hfsdebug-40-and-new-hfs-features/ >>> >> >> So you're saying that because someone could WRITE A PROGRAM to do this, >> this is something that ordinary users can do? >> > > You don't need to write it. It's already written. Just compile it, moron. > Or are you too Mactarded to accomplish that simple task? So you think that makes it more relevant to what actual computer users do with their computers day to day? Yes: I could compile it and run it. But having those skills, I also have the knowledge to investigate whether or not it would be a good idea to use it. > >> LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLL >> >> But let's address the actual subject under discussion: >> >> Given that all Unix-y OSes mandate the creation of directory hard links, >> will you agree that doing so is not necessarily dangerous? >> >> :-) > > Are you Snit's defective brother? Because I insist on the actual topic and not you and your Linux-supporting friends want to deflect onto: Linux-dude: "Mac OS X is bad! Time Machine uses directory hard links!" That is the thesis that needs to be supported or abandoned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 19:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfml00$69s$12@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351884 |
On 2016-04-25 7:46 PM, owl wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2016-04-25 7:13 PM, owl wrote: >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 2016-04-25 4:07 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> So it is no support at all for the idea that OS X is somehow doing >>>>>> something dangerous with hard linked directories in Time Machine to >>>>>> discuss what users may or may not be allowed to do. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you want to address yourself to that point or not? >>>>> >>>>> I don't care what Time Machine does or whether or not it is able >>>>> to tiptoe safely through the minefield of directory hardlinks. >>>>> The fact remains that OS X allows *users* to create to create directory >>>>> hardlinks. That is a fatal flaw, and that alone is enough to file >>>>> OS X under the heading of "Crapware". >>>> >>>> So go ahead: explain to me exactly how I can create a directory hard link. >>>> >>>> List the steps. >>>> >>> >>> Maybe you should read the link that you posted, and my earlier post showing >>> a failed attempt to replicate those steps under Linux. >>> >>> The source code is there. The requirements are listed. Do I need to >>> come over and hold your hand? >>> >>> http://osxbook.com/blog/2008/11/09/hfsdebug-40-and-new-hfs-features/ >>> >> >> So you're saying that because someone could WRITE A PROGRAM to do this, >> this is something that ordinary users can do? >> > > You don't need to write it. It's already written. Just compile it, moron. > Or are you too Mactarded to accomplish that simple task? So you think that makes it more relevant to what actual computer users do with their computers day to day? Yes: I could compile it and run it. But having those skills, I also have the knowledge to investigate whether or not it would be a good idea to use it. > >> LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLL >> >> But let's address the actual subject under discussion: >> >> Given that all Unix-y OSes mandate the creation of directory hard links, >> will you agree that doing so is not necessarily dangerous? >> >> :-) > > Are you Snit's defective brother? Because I insist on the actual topic and not you and your Linux-supporting friends want to deflect onto: Linux-dude: "Mac OS X is bad! Time Machine uses directory hard links!" That is the thesis that needs to be supported or abandoned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 02:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhgjdie093.ar@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #351886 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2016-04-25 7:46 PM, owl wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2016-04-25 7:13 PM, owl wrote: >>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>> On 2016-04-25 4:07 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So it is no support at all for the idea that OS X is somehow doing >>>>>>> something dangerous with hard linked directories in Time Machine to >>>>>>> discuss what users may or may not be allowed to do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you want to address yourself to that point or not? >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't care what Time Machine does or whether or not it is able >>>>>> to tiptoe safely through the minefield of directory hardlinks. >>>>>> The fact remains that OS X allows *users* to create to create directory >>>>>> hardlinks. That is a fatal flaw, and that alone is enough to file >>>>>> OS X under the heading of "Crapware". >>>>> >>>>> So go ahead: explain to me exactly how I can create a directory hard link. >>>>> >>>>> List the steps. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Maybe you should read the link that you posted, and my earlier post showing >>>> a failed attempt to replicate those steps under Linux. >>>> >>>> The source code is there. The requirements are listed. Do I need to >>>> come over and hold your hand? >>>> >>>> http://osxbook.com/blog/2008/11/09/hfsdebug-40-and-new-hfs-features/ >>>> >>> >>> So you're saying that because someone could WRITE A PROGRAM to do this, >>> this is something that ordinary users can do? >>> >> >> You don't need to write it. It's already written. Just compile it, moron. >> Or are you too Mactarded to accomplish that simple task? > > So you think that makes it more relevant to what actual computer users > do with their computers day to day? > > Yes: I could compile it and run it. > > But having those skills, I also have the knowledge to investigate > whether or not it would be a good idea to use it. > So maybe some investigation is in order before shooting off your mouth any further.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 19:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfmlhn$87p$2@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351887 |
On 2016-04-25 7:57 PM, owl wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2016-04-25 7:46 PM, owl wrote: >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 2016-04-25 7:13 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 2016-04-25 4:07 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So it is no support at all for the idea that OS X is somehow doing >>>>>>>> something dangerous with hard linked directories in Time Machine to >>>>>>>> discuss what users may or may not be allowed to do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you want to address yourself to that point or not? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't care what Time Machine does or whether or not it is able >>>>>>> to tiptoe safely through the minefield of directory hardlinks. >>>>>>> The fact remains that OS X allows *users* to create to create directory >>>>>>> hardlinks. That is a fatal flaw, and that alone is enough to file >>>>>>> OS X under the heading of "Crapware". >>>>>> >>>>>> So go ahead: explain to me exactly how I can create a directory hard link. >>>>>> >>>>>> List the steps. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Maybe you should read the link that you posted, and my earlier post showing >>>>> a failed attempt to replicate those steps under Linux. >>>>> >>>>> The source code is there. The requirements are listed. Do I need to >>>>> come over and hold your hand? >>>>> >>>>> http://osxbook.com/blog/2008/11/09/hfsdebug-40-and-new-hfs-features/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> So you're saying that because someone could WRITE A PROGRAM to do this, >>>> this is something that ordinary users can do? >>>> >>> >>> You don't need to write it. It's already written. Just compile it, moron. >>> Or are you too Mactarded to accomplish that simple task? >> >> So you think that makes it more relevant to what actual computer users >> do with their computers day to day? >> >> Yes: I could compile it and run it. >> >> But having those skills, I also have the knowledge to investigate >> whether or not it would be a good idea to use it. >> > > So maybe some investigation is in order before shooting off your mouth > any further. > None is necessary. This is not a problem for the vast majority of personal computer users. That there is no executable they can use to do it is MORE than enough protection from the potential harm of misused directory hard links. But that was never the point... ...and you seem to want to avoid actually addressing that. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 03:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjdie03.550p11@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #351888 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2016-04-25 7:57 PM, owl wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2016-04-25 7:46 PM, owl wrote: >>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>> On 2016-04-25 7:13 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 4:07 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So it is no support at all for the idea that OS X is somehow doing >>>>>>>>> something dangerous with hard linked directories in Time Machine to >>>>>>>>> discuss what users may or may not be allowed to do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you want to address yourself to that point or not? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't care what Time Machine does or whether or not it is able >>>>>>>> to tiptoe safely through the minefield of directory hardlinks. >>>>>>>> The fact remains that OS X allows *users* to create to create directory >>>>>>>> hardlinks. That is a fatal flaw, and that alone is enough to file >>>>>>>> OS X under the heading of "Crapware". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So go ahead: explain to me exactly how I can create a directory hard link. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> List the steps. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe you should read the link that you posted, and my earlier post showing >>>>>> a failed attempt to replicate those steps under Linux. >>>>>> >>>>>> The source code is there. The requirements are listed. Do I need to >>>>>> come over and hold your hand? >>>>>> >>>>>> http://osxbook.com/blog/2008/11/09/hfsdebug-40-and-new-hfs-features/ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So you're saying that because someone could WRITE A PROGRAM to do this, >>>>> this is something that ordinary users can do? >>>>> >>>> >>>> You don't need to write it. It's already written. Just compile it, moron. >>>> Or are you too Mactarded to accomplish that simple task? >>> >>> So you think that makes it more relevant to what actual computer users >>> do with their computers day to day? >>> >>> Yes: I could compile it and run it. >>> >>> But having those skills, I also have the knowledge to investigate >>> whether or not it would be a good idea to use it. >>> >> >> So maybe some investigation is in order before shooting off your mouth >> any further. >> > > None is necessary. > > This is not a problem for the vast majority of personal computer users. > That there is no executable they can use to do it is MORE than enough > protection from the potential harm of misused directory hard links. > What you appear to be saying here is that if OS X's ln command itself allowed it, without the user having to manually call link() in a program that he may have to compile or download, then suddenly millions of Mac users would then be at greater risk. I personally don't see how the 0.000001% of Mac users who are not innately terrified of the command line in general, and who might be expected to run the ln command on occasion, are at any less risk because of ln restrictions. Any of them who might decide to attempt directory hardlink creation would likely investigate their options and quickly arrive at the above described trivial solution.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 20:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfmob8$ds1$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351892 |
On 2016-04-25 8:35 PM, owl wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2016-04-25 7:57 PM, owl wrote: >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 2016-04-25 7:46 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 2016-04-25 7:13 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 4:07 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So it is no support at all for the idea that OS X is somehow doing >>>>>>>>>> something dangerous with hard linked directories in Time Machine to >>>>>>>>>> discuss what users may or may not be allowed to do. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you want to address yourself to that point or not? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't care what Time Machine does or whether or not it is able >>>>>>>>> to tiptoe safely through the minefield of directory hardlinks. >>>>>>>>> The fact remains that OS X allows *users* to create to create directory >>>>>>>>> hardlinks. That is a fatal flaw, and that alone is enough to file >>>>>>>>> OS X under the heading of "Crapware". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So go ahead: explain to me exactly how I can create a directory hard link. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> List the steps. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe you should read the link that you posted, and my earlier post showing >>>>>>> a failed attempt to replicate those steps under Linux. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The source code is there. The requirements are listed. Do I need to >>>>>>> come over and hold your hand? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://osxbook.com/blog/2008/11/09/hfsdebug-40-and-new-hfs-features/ >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So you're saying that because someone could WRITE A PROGRAM to do this, >>>>>> this is something that ordinary users can do? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You don't need to write it. It's already written. Just compile it, moron. >>>>> Or are you too Mactarded to accomplish that simple task? >>>> >>>> So you think that makes it more relevant to what actual computer users >>>> do with their computers day to day? >>>> >>>> Yes: I could compile it and run it. >>>> >>>> But having those skills, I also have the knowledge to investigate >>>> whether or not it would be a good idea to use it. >>>> >>> >>> So maybe some investigation is in order before shooting off your mouth >>> any further. >>> >> >> None is necessary. >> >> This is not a problem for the vast majority of personal computer users. >> That there is no executable they can use to do it is MORE than enough >> protection from the potential harm of misused directory hard links. >> > > What you appear to be saying here is that if OS X's ln command itself > allowed it, without the user having to manually call link() in a program > that he may have to compile or download, then suddenly millions of Mac > users would then be at greater risk. I personally don't see how the > 0.000001% of Mac users who are not innately terrified of the command line > in general, and who might be expected to run the ln command on occasion, > are at any less risk because of ln restrictions. Any of them who might > decide to attempt directory hardlink creation would likely investigate > their options and quickly arrive at the above described trivial solution. > > So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 03:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjdie0ar.gia@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #351893 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2016-04-25 8:35 PM, owl wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2016-04-25 7:57 PM, owl wrote: >>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>> On 2016-04-25 7:46 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 7:13 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2016-04-25 4:07 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So it is no support at all for the idea that OS X is somehow doing >>>>>>>>>>> something dangerous with hard linked directories in Time Machine to >>>>>>>>>>> discuss what users may or may not be allowed to do. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you want to address yourself to that point or not? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't care what Time Machine does or whether or not it is able >>>>>>>>>> to tiptoe safely through the minefield of directory hardlinks. >>>>>>>>>> The fact remains that OS X allows *users* to create to create directory >>>>>>>>>> hardlinks. That is a fatal flaw, and that alone is enough to file >>>>>>>>>> OS X under the heading of "Crapware". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So go ahead: explain to me exactly how I can create a directory hard link. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> List the steps. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe you should read the link that you posted, and my earlier post showing >>>>>>>> a failed attempt to replicate those steps under Linux. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The source code is there. The requirements are listed. Do I need to >>>>>>>> come over and hold your hand? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://osxbook.com/blog/2008/11/09/hfsdebug-40-and-new-hfs-features/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you're saying that because someone could WRITE A PROGRAM to do this, >>>>>>> this is something that ordinary users can do? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You don't need to write it. It's already written. Just compile it, moron. >>>>>> Or are you too Mactarded to accomplish that simple task? >>>>> >>>>> So you think that makes it more relevant to what actual computer users >>>>> do with their computers day to day? >>>>> >>>>> Yes: I could compile it and run it. >>>>> >>>>> But having those skills, I also have the knowledge to investigate >>>>> whether or not it would be a good idea to use it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So maybe some investigation is in order before shooting off your mouth >>>> any further. >>>> >>> >>> None is necessary. >>> >>> This is not a problem for the vast majority of personal computer users. >>> That there is no executable they can use to do it is MORE than enough >>> protection from the potential harm of misused directory hard links. >>> >> >> What you appear to be saying here is that if OS X's ln command itself >> allowed it, without the user having to manually call link() in a program >> that he may have to compile or download, then suddenly millions of Mac >> users would then be at greater risk. I personally don't see how the >> 0.000001% of Mac users who are not innately terrified of the command line >> in general, and who might be expected to run the ln command on occasion, >> are at any less risk because of ln restrictions. Any of them who might >> decide to attempt directory hardlink creation would likely investigate >> their options and quickly arrive at the above described trivial solution. >> >> > > So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... > I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part of the subject under discussion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 21:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfmp9o$fca$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351894 |
On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... >> > > I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part > of the subject under discussion. > You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. Yes or no: Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 04:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjgi03.a4p1@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #351895 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: > >>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... >>> >> >> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part >> of the subject under discussion. >> > > You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. > > See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. > > Yes or no: > > Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links > to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? I told you I don't care about Time Machine. But if the implementation of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what led to OS X allowing users to create directory hardlinks, then the answer is "yes."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 21:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfmqe7$hb8$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351896 |
On 2016-04-25 9:13 PM, owl wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >> >>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... >>>> >>> >>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part >>> of the subject under discussion. >>> >> >> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >> >> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >> >> Yes or no: >> >> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? > > I told you I don't care about Time Machine. But if the implementation > of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what led to OS X allowing > users to create directory hardlinks, then the answer is "yes." > Failure to answer the question noted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 04:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhgu03a.f93@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #351897 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2016-04-25 9:13 PM, owl wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >>> >>>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... >>>>> >>>> >>>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part >>>> of the subject under discussion. >>>> >>> >>> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >>> >>> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >>> >>> Yes or no: >>> >>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >>> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? >> >> I told you I don't care about Time Machine. But if the implementation >> of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what led to OS X allowing >> users to create directory hardlinks, then the answer is "yes." >> > > Failure to answer the question noted. The answer was a conditional "yes". Failure to read noted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web