Re: The oh so stable Linux - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: The oh so stable Linux - Linux ; On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:25:28 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote: > The problem? It works fine for about 1-2 days, and then Linux > starts to freak out. It stops forwarding some traffic, starts > blocking other traffic randomly, and ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Re: The oh so stable Linux

  1. Re: The oh so stable Linux

    On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:25:28 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > The problem? It works fine for about 1-2 days, and then Linux
    > starts to freak out. It stops forwarding some traffic, starts
    > blocking other traffic randomly, and some just seems to go into a
    > black hole. iptables has to be reset and the rules reloaded (just
    > reloading doesn't work, you have to reset first).


    You do realize that all established tcp connections will hang on
    failover? The best you can do is send them a tcp reset. Do you
    understand why?

  2. Re: The oh so stable Linux

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:54:14 +0000 (UTC), Rob Schwenk wrote:

    > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:25:28 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> The problem? It works fine for about 1-2 days, and then Linux
    >> starts to freak out. It stops forwarding some traffic, starts
    >> blocking other traffic randomly, and some just seems to go into a
    >> black hole. iptables has to be reset and the rules reloaded (just
    >> reloading doesn't work, you have to reset first).

    >
    > You do realize that all established tcp connections will hang on
    > failover? The best you can do is send them a tcp reset. Do you
    > understand why?


    Yes, of course i'm aware of that. There's nothing that can be done about
    that, short of a far more expensive bgp solution. (more expensive in
    monthly rates for SLA lines where you can get the ISP's to do BGP to you).
    IN this area, such lines are extremely expensive because they would have to
    be laid over mountainous terrain. This is why they currently use a
    wireless and cable link, with dual WAN. It's also why they're using VOIP
    because T1's would be prohibitively expensive as well.

    Thankfully, the VOIP provider can seamlessly switch calls from one IP to
    the other, so the call is not lost.

    The reason i'm even doing this is beceause we can't find anyone willing to
    implement such a solution, because it's simply that convoluted of an
    approach that it is a rarity in the business world, and nobody has
    experience doing this.

    Is it a stupid way to go? It's Certainly not ideal, and there are
    drawbacks, but the alternative will cost 100's of thousands in construction
    costs alone.

  3. Re: The oh so stable Linux

    Erik Funkenbusch writes:

    > On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:54:14 +0000 (UTC), Rob Schwenk wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:25:28 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>> The problem? It works fine for about 1-2 days, and then Linux
    >>> starts to freak out. It stops forwarding some traffic, starts
    >>> blocking other traffic randomly, and some just seems to go into a
    >>> black hole. iptables has to be reset and the rules reloaded (just
    >>> reloading doesn't work, you have to reset first).

    >>
    >> You do realize that all established tcp connections will hang on
    >> failover? The best you can do is send them a tcp reset. Do you
    >> understand why?

    >
    > Yes, of course i'm aware of that. There's nothing that can be done about
    > that, short of a far more expensive bgp solution. (more expensive in
    > monthly rates for SLA lines where you can get the ISP's to do BGP to you).
    > IN this area, such lines are extremely expensive because they would have to
    > be laid over mountainous terrain. This is why they currently use a
    > wireless and cable link, with dual WAN. It's also why they're using VOIP
    > because T1's would be prohibitively expensive as well.
    >
    > Thankfully, the VOIP provider can seamlessly switch calls from one IP to
    > the other, so the call is not lost.
    >
    > The reason i'm even doing this is beceause we can't find anyone willing to
    > implement such a solution, because it's simply that convoluted of an
    > approach that it is a rarity in the business world, and nobody has
    > experience doing this.
    >

    A rarity?

    In what kind of misbegotten third world country do you live?

    It's in fact a very common setup. And it works. On Linux-based
    firewalls like Watchguard and Fortinet even.

    Mart

    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

  4. Re: The oh so stable Linux

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:08:15 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch writes:
    >


    >> The reason i'm even doing this is beceause we can't find anyone willing
    >> to implement such a solution, because it's simply that convoluted of an
    >> approach that it is a rarity in the business world, and nobody has
    >> experience doing this.
    >>

    > A rarity?
    >
    > In what kind of misbegotten third world country do you live?


    FunkenWinTrollLand ?

    >
    > It's in fact a very common setup. And it works. On Linux-based firewalls
    > like Watchguard and Fortinet even.
    >
    > Mart






    --
    Linux full time, on the desktop, since August 1997

  5. Re: The oh so stable Linux

    On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:25:28 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >>> The problem? It works fine for about 1-2 days, and then Linux
    >>> starts to freak out. It stops forwarding some traffic, starts
    >>> blocking other traffic randomly, and some just seems to go into a
    >>> black hole. iptables has to be reset and the rules reloaded (just
    >>> reloading doesn't work, you have to reset first).

    >>
    >> You do realize that all established tcp connections will hang on
    >> failover? The best you can do is send them a tcp reset. Do you
    >> understand why?

    >
    > Yes, of course i'm aware of that. There's nothing that can be done
    > about that, short of a far more expensive bgp solution. (more
    > expensive in monthly rates for SLA lines where you can get the ISP's
    > to do BGP to you). IN this area, such lines are extremely expensive
    > because they would have to be laid over mountainous terrain. This is
    > why they currently use a wireless and cable link, with dual WAN. It's
    > also why they're using VOIP because T1's would be prohibitively
    > expensive as well.


    It isn't a routing problem and BGP won't help. Do you really know why
    all established tcp connections will hang?

    > Thankfully, the VOIP provider can seamlessly switch calls from one IP
    > to the other, so the call is not lost.


    Then the VOIP must be using udp.

    It would help if you posted your iptables rules and what routing you
    configured for this. Clearly you did not test your configuration
    sufficiently as 'Multi-wan' + iptables is very common these days.

  6. Re: The oh so stable Linux

    On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:17:46 +0000 (UTC), Rob Schwenk wrote:

    > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:25:28 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>>> The problem? It works fine for about 1-2 days, and then Linux
    >>>> starts to freak out. It stops forwarding some traffic, starts
    >>>> blocking other traffic randomly, and some just seems to go into a
    >>>> black hole. iptables has to be reset and the rules reloaded (just
    >>>> reloading doesn't work, you have to reset first).
    >>>
    >>> You do realize that all established tcp connections will hang on
    >>> failover? The best you can do is send them a tcp reset. Do you
    >>> understand why?

    >>
    >> Yes, of course i'm aware of that. There's nothing that can be done
    >> about that, short of a far more expensive bgp solution. (more
    >> expensive in monthly rates for SLA lines where you can get the ISP's
    >> to do BGP to you). IN this area, such lines are extremely expensive
    >> because they would have to be laid over mountainous terrain. This is
    >> why they currently use a wireless and cable link, with dual WAN. It's
    >> also why they're using VOIP because T1's would be prohibitively
    >> expensive as well.

    >
    > It isn't a routing problem and BGP won't help. Do you really know why
    > all established tcp connections will hang?


    bgp can in fact help.

    >> Thankfully, the VOIP provider can seamlessly switch calls from one IP
    >> to the other, so the call is not lost.

    >
    > Then the VOIP must be using udp.


    Yes, standards based VOIP does. SIP can be either UDP or TCP based, but
    RTP is always UDP.

    > It would help if you posted your iptables rules and what routing you
    > configured for this. Clearly you did not test your configuration
    > sufficiently as 'Multi-wan' + iptables is very common these days.


    I can't post that information for privacy reasons, at least not without
    mangling the IP addresses, and i'm not prepared to do that right now.

  7. Re: The oh so stable Linux

    Erik Funkenbusch writes:

    > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:17:46 +0000 (UTC), Rob Schwenk wrote:
    >
    >> It would help if you posted your iptables rules and what routing you
    >> configured for this. Clearly you did not test your configuration
    >> sufficiently as 'Multi-wan' + iptables is very common these days.

    >
    > I can't post that information for privacy reasons, at least not without
    > mangling the IP addresses, and i'm not prepared to do that right now.


    In other words, you're lying.

    Mart

    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

  8. Re: The oh so stable Linux

    On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 06:39:25 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch writes:
    >
    >> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:17:46 +0000 (UTC), Rob Schwenk wrote:
    >>
    >>> It would help if you posted your iptables rules and what routing you
    >>> configured for this. Clearly you did not test your configuration
    >>> sufficiently as 'Multi-wan' + iptables is very common these days.

    >>
    >> I can't post that information for privacy reasons, at least not without
    >> mangling the IP addresses, and i'm not prepared to do that right now.

    >
    > In other words, you're lying.
    >
    > Mart


    You Linux loons are really a pip.

    Nobody in their right mind would post that kind of personal, private
    information in this group especially considering that the firewall is
    having problems.

    It's like hanging the key to the door on the door knob.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  9. Re: The oh so stable Linux

    On Oct 22, 5:46 pm, Erik Funkenbusch
    wrote:
    > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:17:46 +0000 (UTC), Rob Schwenk wrote:
    > > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:25:28 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >
    > >>>> The problem? It works fine for about 1-2 days, and then Linux
    > >>>> starts to freak out. It stops forwarding some traffic, starts
    > >>>> blocking other traffic randomly, and some just seems to go into a
    > >>>> black hole. iptables has to be reset and the rules reloaded (just
    > >>>> reloading doesn't work, you have to reset first).

    >
    > >>> You do realize that all established tcp connections will hang on
    > >>> failover? The best you can do is send them a tcp reset. Do you
    > >>> understand why?

    >
    > >> Yes, of course i'm aware of that. There's nothing that can be done
    > >> about that, short of a far more expensive bgp solution. (more
    > >> expensive in monthly rates for SLA lines where you can get the ISP's
    > >> to do BGP to you). IN this area, such lines are extremely expensive
    > >> because they would have to be laid over mountainous terrain. This is
    > >> why they currently use a wireless and cable link, with dual WAN. It's
    > >> also why they're using VOIP because T1's would be prohibitively
    > >> expensive as well.

    >
    > > It isn't a routing problem and BGP won't help. Do you really know why
    > > all established tcp connections will hang?

    >
    > bgp can in fact help.


    So why not use it? Or is the additional cost
    per connection-minute not worth the trouble?

    Just kinda curious here. Ideally you, or
    your employer, could make a business case,
    something along the following lines, to the
    purchasing manager:

    EF: "We know that we make $1.5B per year
    in revenue, most of it using our phone lines.[*]
    Since there are 2000 business hours per
    year (50 weeks, 40 hours/week), that's
    $208.30 per second. BGP costs $1,500
    and will support 32 users per cluster; since we
    have about 100 phonecalls active at any one
    time, we'll need at least 4 licenses, and
    that will cost $6,000 -- or about a half-hour
    of downtime."

    Management: "Better than throwing more
    NRE at the problem. Approved!"

    Granted, this is hopelessly naive on my part,
    but this is why Microsoft works; the scaling
    issues might come later.

    >
    > >> Thankfully, the VOIP provider can seamlessly switch calls from one IP
    > >> to the other, so the call is not lost.

    >
    > > Then the VOIP must be using udp.

    >
    > Yes, standards based VOIP does. SIP can be either UDP or TCP based, but
    > RTP is always UDP.
    >
    > > It would help if you posted your iptables rules and what routing you
    > > configured for this. Clearly you did not test your configuration
    > > sufficiently as 'Multi-wan' + iptables is very common these days.

    >
    > I can't post that information for privacy reasons, at least not without
    > mangling the IP addresses, and i'm not prepared to do that right now.


    It is not difficult, though somewhat tricky, to contemplate the
    rewriting of full IP addresses, but it would be very tricky to get it
    right if one includes such things as 192.168.0.0/24 and 10.0.0.0/8
    as parseable entities, to say nothing about 192.168.0.* and 10.*.*.*.

    It would be even trickier for me to use JScript or VBScript,
    as I'm not familiar with them. ;-) Others might have better luck.
    [*] the numbers are entirely ad hoc, of course.

  10. Re: The oh so stable Linux

    "Moshe Goldfarb." writes:

    > On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 06:39:25 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
    >
    >> Erik Funkenbusch writes:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:17:46 +0000 (UTC), Rob Schwenk wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> It would help if you posted your iptables rules and what routing you
    >>>> configured for this. Clearly you did not test your configuration
    >>>> sufficiently as 'Multi-wan' + iptables is very common these days.
    >>>
    >>> I can't post that information for privacy reasons, at least not without
    >>> mangling the IP addresses, and i'm not prepared to do that right now.

    >>
    >> In other words, you're lying.
    >>
    >> Mart

    >
    > You Linux loons are really a pip.
    >

    And you're stupid.

    > Nobody in their right mind would post that kind of personal, private
    > information in this group especially considering that the firewall is
    > having problems.


    Five minutes with sed, and all the identifying information is gone.

    And for the mentally challenged: you can do search and replace in a
    Windows GUI text editor too.

    Moron.

    Mart

    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

  11. Re: The oh so stable Linux

    The Ghost In The Machine writes:

    > On Oct 22, 5:46 pm, Erik Funkenbusch
    > wrote:



    >> I can't post that information for privacy reasons, at least not without
    >> mangling the IP addresses, and i'm not prepared to do that right now.

    >
    > It is not difficult, though somewhat tricky, to contemplate the
    > rewriting of full IP addresses, but it would be very tricky to get it
    > right if one includes such things as 192.168.0.0/24 and 10.0.0.0/8
    > as parseable entities, to say nothing about 192.168.0.* and 10.*.*.*.
    >

    You're overcomplicating the issue. Let me guess, you're a software
    developer?

    RFC1918 ranges are not privacy sensitive. As long as Erik strips out
    the public addresses and other customer-identifying information from
    the scripts, there is no way to connect the remaining topology
    information (which is supposedly all RFC1918 networks) to his
    customer.

    Five to fifteen minutes with sed, depending on complexity of the
    rulebase and competence of the one writing the regexes, will fix the
    privacy issue.

    Mart

    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

  12. Re: The oh so stable Linux

    On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:26:15 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:

    > "Moshe Goldfarb." writes:
    >
    >> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 06:39:25 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
    >>
    >>> Erik Funkenbusch writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:17:46 +0000 (UTC), Rob Schwenk wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> It would help if you posted your iptables rules and what routing you
    >>>>> configured for this. Clearly you did not test your configuration
    >>>>> sufficiently as 'Multi-wan' + iptables is very common these days.
    >>>>
    >>>> I can't post that information for privacy reasons, at least not without
    >>>> mangling the IP addresses, and i'm not prepared to do that right now.
    >>>
    >>> In other words, you're lying.
    >>>
    >>> Mart

    >>
    >> You Linux loons are really a pip.
    >>

    > And you're stupid.
    >
    >> Nobody in their right mind would post that kind of personal, private
    >> information in this group especially considering that the firewall is
    >> having problems.

    >
    > Five minutes with sed, and all the identifying information is gone.
    >
    > And for the mentally challenged: you can do search and replace in a
    > Windows GUI text editor too.
    >
    > Moron.
    >
    > Mart


    And one missed line and the information is out there.
    Not worth the risk, especially considering the lack of technical ability
    that abounds in COLA.

    Who cares what you think?
    You loons will never admit to the problem even if it's staring you right in
    the face.
    Why?
    Because you can't bring yourself to accept that Linux has failures.
    You prefer to discredit the poster and blame everything under the sun for
    Linux's inability to function.

    It happens all the time in COLA.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  13. Re: The oh so stable Linux

    On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:46:25 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:17:46 +0000 (UTC), Rob Schwenk wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:25:28 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> The problem? It works fine for about 1-2 days, and then Linux
    >>>>> starts to freak out. It stops forwarding some traffic, starts
    >>>>> blocking other traffic randomly, and some just seems to go into a
    >>>>> black hole. iptables has to be reset and the rules reloaded (just
    >>>>> reloading doesn't work, you have to reset first).
    >>>>
    >>>> You do realize that all established tcp connections will hang on
    >>>> failover? The best you can do is send them a tcp reset. Do you
    >>>> understand why?
    >>>
    >>> Yes, of course i'm aware of that. There's nothing that can be done
    >>> about that, short of a far more expensive bgp solution. (more
    >>> expensive in monthly rates for SLA lines where you can get the ISP's
    >>> to do BGP to you). IN this area, such lines are extremely expensive
    >>> because they would have to be laid over mountainous terrain. This is
    >>> why they currently use a wireless and cable link, with dual WAN. It's
    >>> also why they're using VOIP because T1's would be prohibitively
    >>> expensive as well.

    >>
    >> It isn't a routing problem and BGP won't help. Do you really know why
    >> all established tcp connections will hang?

    >
    > bgp can in fact help.


    Your ISP's wouldn't allow it and even if they did your tcp connections
    would still hang. I believe your problems are due to your lack of
    understanding about this and how to work around this inherent problem.

    >>> Thankfully, the VOIP provider can seamlessly switch calls from one IP
    >>> to the other, so the call is not lost.

    >>
    >> Then the VOIP must be using udp.

    >
    > Yes, standards based VOIP does. SIP can be either UDP or TCP based, but
    > RTP is always UDP.
    >
    >> It would help if you posted your iptables rules and what routing you
    >> configured for this. Clearly you did not test your configuration
    >> sufficiently as 'Multi-wan' + iptables is very common these days.

    >
    > I can't post that information for privacy reasons, at least not without
    > mangling the IP addresses, and i'm not prepared to do that right now.


    Thaat is just lame. Save the data to a file, use your favorite editor
    and change the first 2 or 3 bytes to something else. So how about it,
    post your iptables rules and routing info.

  14. Re: The oh so stable Linux

    The Ghost In The Machine writes:

    > On Oct 23, 10:32 am, Mart van de Wege
    > wrote:
    >> The Ghost In The Machine writes:


    > Never say never: one compromised node past the DMZ
    > and that particular subsection is very exposed to the
    > erstwhile cracker;


    Nah.

    That's only interesting if the public address for that DMZ host is
    given away. Once that is stripped from the config, it is as
    identifiable as all other hypothetical topology.

    >
    > I will not say, however, that this is a binary problem;
    > most companies have possibly the following subsections,
    > methinks:




    You'd be surprised how many companies have a very simple
    Public-DMZ-LAN segmentation.

    And why not? It works for most cases anyway.

    Someone using VOIP will usually have some extra zones dedicated to the
    VOIP traffic, but I've seen even that pushed into the simple
    three-zone model.

    His routing tables are not interesting right now. I'm more interested
    in his iptables config.

    > I will also refer you to the right of Eric *not* to
    > disseminate that information, if he is the copyright
    > holder; if he is not, then he doesn't have either the
    > right to disseminate or the right not to.


    He has that right, granted.

    Still, he'd gain a lot of credibility if he'd give us at least *some*
    details.

    What he told you in a previous post makes me suspect hardware
    issues. Generic server hardware is not the best to do high-speed
    packet filtering, especially not using Gig-E cards. UDP traffic can
    bring down generic Intel hardware quite easily: my home firewall setup
    used to consist of an old Pentium-120 with two network cards, and
    World of Warcraft would bring it down reliably. A little Linksys with
    OpenWRT, nominally not much more powerful, handles that traffic
    without breaking a sweat.

    That suggests that the Linux network stack *can* handle such
    loads. That commercial vendors like Fortinet and Watchguard use that
    stack to build dedicated firewalls suggests as well that Linux itself
    is not at fault.

    Erik however went straight for blaming Linux. That smells fishy.

    Mart
    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

  15. Re: The oh so stable Linux

    On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:39:19 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:

    > What he told you in a previous post makes me suspect hardware
    > issues. Generic server hardware is not the best to do high-speed
    > packet filtering, especially not using Gig-E cards. UDP traffic can
    > bring down generic Intel hardware quite easily: my home firewall setup
    > used to consist of an old Pentium-120 with two network cards, and
    > World of Warcraft would bring it down reliably. A little Linksys with
    > OpenWRT, nominally not much more powerful, handles that traffic
    > without breaking a sweat.


    It has nothing to do with the HW. He said voip still works. voip is
    using udp. udp is stateless so after a failover it still works.
    Established tcp connections will hang after a failover.

    I can just see Erik's test procedure now. Using isp1 does viop (udp)
    and tcp connections work? Yes. Failover, does viop and tcp connections
    work? Yes. End of testing.

    He clearly didn't try testing while there were established tcp
    connections.

    > That suggests that the Linux network stack *can* handle such
    > loads. That commercial vendors like Fortinet and Watchguard use that
    > stack to build dedicated firewalls suggests as well that Linux itself
    > is not at fault.
    >
    > Erik however went straight for blaming Linux. That smells fishy.


    He seems to know no better. Clearly his networking knowledge is
    lacking. I'm sure he still doesn't know why the tcp connections hang
    following a failver. Linux is up to the task, Erik isn't.

  16. Re: The oh so stable Linux

    On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:03:46 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 06:39:25 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
    >
    >> Erik Funkenbusch writes:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:17:46 +0000 (UTC), Rob Schwenk wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> It would help if you posted your iptables rules and what routing you
    >>>> configured for this. Clearly you did not test your configuration
    >>>> sufficiently as 'Multi-wan' + iptables is very common these days.
    >>>
    >>> I can't post that information for privacy reasons, at least not
    >>> without mangling the IP addresses, and i'm not prepared to do that
    >>> right now.

    >>
    >> In other words, you're lying.


    Exactly. This is Funkenbusch refusing to post supporting data for his
    recent anti Linux post.

    The jury is directed to disregard *all* of Funkenbusches posts as
    unreliable etc.

    The case is closed, throw the lying Wintroll in the County lockup with
    Bubba for 90 days.

    >>
    >> Mart

    >
    > You Linux loons are really a pip.


    Whatever that means in Wintroll land.

    >
    > Nobody in their right mind would post that kind of personal, private
    > information in this group especially considering that the firewall is
    > having problems.


    Certainly no clueless Windows fed morons like Funkenbusch or you who have
    not the slightest idea of how to use even the most basic Linux text
    editing applications with their easy search and replace facilities.

    >
    > It's like hanging the key to the door on the door knob.


    That would be using Microsoft Windows ...





    --
    Linux full time, on the desktop, since August 1997

  17. Re: The oh so stable Linux

    On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:31:25 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > And one missed line and the information is out there.


    A HUGE risk for a Wintroll, I agree.

    No problem for anyone else tho.


    > Not worth the
    > risk, especially considering the lack of technical ability that abounds
    > in COLA.


    I agree, but the Wintrolls just refuse to learn any Linux skills.

    > Who cares what you think?
    > You loons will never admit to the problem even if it's staring you right
    > in the face.
    > Why?
    > Because you can't bring yourself to accept that Linux has failures.


    No, we just refuse to accept that Linux has the failures that YOU and
    Funkenbusch et al claim.

    We see the failures as deliberate on your part, as we believe that people
    just can't be that stupid.

    If Wintrolls were as stupid as their fake personas would have us believe,
    their hearts would not have the good sense to keep beating.

    > You
    > prefer to discredit the poster and blame everything under the sun for
    > Linux's inability to function.


    Blaming a lying, Wintroll is perfectly ok, their inability to tell the
    truth as evidenced by hiding behind dozens of throaway fake ids, is
    deserving of the lowest of regard.

    > It happens all the time in COLA.


    As it should, Wintroll.



    --
    Linux full time, on the desktop, since August 1997

  18. Re: The oh so stable Linux

    On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:32:34 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:

    > On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:31:25 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >
    >> And one missed line and the information is out there.

    >
    > A HUGE risk for a Wintroll, I agree.
    >
    > No problem for anyone else tho.


    Nice self nuke Terry.

    He was talking about a Linux editor program....


    >
    >> Not worth the
    >> risk, especially considering the lack of technical ability that abounds
    >> in COLA.

    >
    > I agree, but the Wintrolls just refuse to learn any Linux skills.


    So what's your excuse?


    >> Who cares what you think?
    >> You loons will never admit to the problem even if it's staring you right
    >> in the face.
    >> Why?
    >> Because you can't bring yourself to accept that Linux has failures.

    >
    > No, we just refuse to accept that Linux has the failures that YOU and
    > Funkenbusch et al claim.


    Well I posted one last week in the printer thread.
    You boobs went all over the place blaiming me.

    Just like I figured you would.

    Then I dropped the bomb on you where the www.linuxprinting.org site clearly
    explains why the included driver (Ubuntu/HP) does not work.

    You idiots still couldn't get it right because you kept claiming the driver
    was included with Ubuntu, which it is.
    It doesn't work correctly however.

    That's just one example.

    Same thing with the Linux sound clusterfsck although to *your credit* you
    at least acknowledged that a problem exists.
    The others danced all over the place denying it despit my posting a linke
    where the developers themselves admit sound under Linux is a mess.

    You can't admit that Linux has problems.
    You'll never admit it.

    That's why it's not even worth it.


    > We see the failures as deliberate on your part, as we believe that people
    > just can't be that stupid.


    Sure you do.
    That's because you refuse to look at the facts.

    > If Wintrolls were as stupid as their fake personas would have us believe,
    > their hearts would not have the good sense to keep beating.


    So all these different posts made by different people with Ubuntu freezing
    problems that DFS is posting are all fake?

    Sure....

    It's all one big conspiracy.

    >> You
    >> prefer to discredit the poster and blame everything under the sun for
    >> Linux's inability to function.

    >
    > Blaming a lying, Wintroll is perfectly ok, their inability to tell the
    > truth as evidenced by hiding behind dozens of throaway fake ids, is
    > deserving of the lowest of regard.


    Yawn.......

    Address the points, not the person.



    >> It happens all the time in COLA.

    >
    > As it should, Wintroll.


    Hahaha!

    I just took you apart, again.......


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  19. Re: The oh so stable Linux

    Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    > Terry Porter wrote:
    >> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >>
    >>> Who cares what you think? You loons will never admit to
    >>> the problem even if it's staring you right in the face.
    >>> Why? Because you can't bring yourself to accept that Linux
    >>> has failures.


    Sure ....

    http://tinyurl.com/6m6a8c

    Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.os.linux.ubuntu
    Subject: Re: [News] Red Hat Developer's Update on PulseAudio,
    Fedora Live CDs Interview
    Message-ID: Xns9A7D9779E7902thisnthatadelphianet@66.250.146.12 8
    Date: 11 Apr 2008 18:53:55 GMT


    > Dan, you're probably a nice guy, but we get a ton of "works
    > for me" crap in COLA and most times it's just people telling
    > lies.


    Well sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not in COLA. I'm reading
    these posts in the Ubuntu group. The only reason they are going
    to COLA is because whomever started the thread had it crossposted
    there...and to Vista groups, which I removed because this has
    nothing to do with Vista.

    I'm NOT a Linux pusher, I still use Windows most of the time
    since I'd just installed Linux a few weeks ago, maybe a month+
    ago, and still checking out apps and learning Linux. There are
    things I like and things I don't like.

    Believe what you want to believe. It's painfully obvious that you
    are completely anti-Linux, just like some are completely anti-MS,
    and have such strong preconceived beliefs that it doesn't really
    matter what anyone says about any particular Linux item,
    everyone's a liar, and nothing works out-of-the-box.

    >> No, we just refuse to accept that Linux has the failures
    >> that YOU and Funkenbusch et al claim.

    >
    > Well I posted one last week in the printer thread. You boobs
    > went all over the place blaiming me.
    >
    > Just like I figured you would.
    >
    > Then I dropped the bomb on you where the www.linuxprinting.org
    > site clearly explains why the included driver (Ubuntu/HP)
    > does not work.


    Yeah, right. Complaint about the open source driver, which
    recommends using their other driver for a specific printer.
    Rather than attempt using that other driver, blames the first for
    not working. Then blames the responder for not knowing about its
    post from several weeks earlier, not mentioned. But it is not
    the first time that it has blamed the poster.

    http://tinyurl.com/599u38

    Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.os.windows-xp,
    microsoft.public.windows.vista.general, alt.os.linux.ubuntu
    Subject: Re: how open source has influenced Windows Server 2008 ..
    Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 03:21:24 +0000 (UTC)
    Message-ID: fu3rbk$kmf$1@registered.motzarella.org

    Moshe Goldfarb wrote:


    > Oh, I see you've met Redhat!!!
    > https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/


    Why do you continually crosspost to other newsgroups? Are you so
    desperate for attention? Is your aim to start flame wars between
    newsgroups? usenet used to be a relatively friendly place until
    the likes of you started abusing it.

    Your immature posting style says so much about your obvious lack
    of education / intelligence. I hope it is the former as that can
    be remedied.

    > You idiots still couldn't get it right because you kept
    > claiming the driver was included with Ubuntu, which it is. It
    > doesn't work correctly however.


    Calling posters "idiots" is intent to provoke anger and disruption.

    http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killf..._troll_faq.htm

    Subject: 3.4 The nasty Troll

    If anyone does anything which will interfere with the troll's
    ability to cause mayhem, they can become very nasty, posting
    from obviously incorrect variations of the name etc. insults,
    call them netcops, netnannies, homosexuals.
    also

    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/

    7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics [...]

    [3.] Put your opponent off guard by insulting him. The
    liberal use of profanity and vulgarisms can be very effective,
    particularly when used against you more dignified opponents.
    Your experience as a school yard bully can be handy here.

    > That's just one example.


    See above.

    > Same thing with the Linux sound clusterfsck although to *your
    > credit* you at least acknowledged that a problem exists. The
    > others danced all over the place denying it despit my posting
    > a linke where the developers themselves admit sound under
    > Linux is a mess.


    http://groups.google.com/group/comp....5fa6299546d5d7

    Linux is good for high fidelity easy listening.

    I took a little trip away from home with my laptop, an older Dell
    C600, 0.85 GHz Intel Latitude, I stopped by a local department
    store and for $25 US + $2 local tax, purchased an Altec Lansing
    BAX1121 stereo sound system with 4" woofer. Picked a free MP3
    jazz tune download site like

    http://www.airmenofnote.com/sounds/TOC.htm

    (Airmen of Note is a premium US military band jazz combo.)

    Voila! Using Totem Movie Player 2.20.20 in Ubuntu 7.10 Gutsy
    Gibbon, I had room filling high fidelity volume. Having played
    professionally, I could really appreciate the impressive quality
    sound. Dell did a good job on this laptop with the sound chip.

    No gaps, great filling, good taste, less calories .... :-)

    Meanwhile listening, also spent at leisure browsing the 'net,
    downloading, updating software without having to reboot. (Linux
    only requires a reboot if OS image is modified.)

    Thank you again Linux for a job well done.

    > You can't admit that Linux has problems. You'll never admit
    > it.
    >
    > That's why it's not even worth it.


    Whine, whine, whine ....

    >> We see the failures as deliberate on your part, as we
    >> believe that people just can't be that stupid.

    >
    > Sure you do. That's because you refuse to look at the facts.


    Tail wagging the dog.

    >> If Wintrolls were as stupid as their fake personas would
    >> have us believe, their hearts would not have the good sense
    >> to keep beating.

    >
    > So all these different posts made by different people with
    > Ubuntu freezing problems that DFS is posting are all fake?
    >
    > Sure....
    >
    > It's all one big conspiracy.


    No, it is taken out of context posts to disrupt this forum.

    >>> You prefer to discredit the poster and blame everything
    >>> under the sun for Linux's inability to function.

    >>
    >> Blaming a lying, Wintroll is perfectly ok, their inability
    >> to tell the truth as evidenced by hiding behind dozens of
    >> throaway fake ids, is deserving of the lowest of regard.

    >
    > Yawn.......
    >
    > Address the points, not the person.


    Sure.

    http://tinyurl.com/6hecfx

    Subject: Re: Roy Schestowitz
    Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:37:41 +0100
    Message-ID: MPG.22710e9e34014f6b9896a3@news.motzarella.org

    > He has software that takes RSS feeds, sorts them, searches for
    > certain phrases, makes comments taken from a database and
    > spits out the stuff to every corner of the Internet.


    Unlike you - a troll with a chip on your shoulder who manually
    creates so much ****e aka anti-Roy spam that no-one, that's
    right, NO-ONE wants to read, that you've single-handedly reduced
    the appeal and effectiveness of a newsgroup.

    Please, go create another group and move to it. If you really
    have a voice someone wants to listen to, you'll get them moving
    over to it.

    You can get treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder you know!

    >>> It happens all the time in COLA.

    >>
    >> As it should, Wintroll.

    >
    > Hahaha! I just took you apart, again.......


    http://groups.google.com/group/comp....18fb3cdef317aa

    Hadron wrote:
    > It IS because of him and two other useless people in
    > particular (CBFalconer and Harold "old school" Stevens
    > (probably both Willy nyms) that I started to drift from the
    > Ubuntu fan boy zone.


    "I got my ass kicked up around my shoulders in AOLU, so in a lame
    attempt to hide the ass-kicking I received and deserved, I puffed
    out my hollow chest, chortled 'victory' and acted like I walked
    away from the group."

    --
    HPT
    Quando omni flunkus moritati
    (If all else fails, play dead)
    - "Red" Green

  20. Re: The oh so stable Linux

    On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 06:26:34 -0600, High Plains Thumper wrote:

    > Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >> Terry Porter wrote:
    >>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Who cares what you think? You loons will never admit to
    >>>> the problem even if it's staring you right in the face.
    >>>> Why? Because you can't bring yourself to accept that Linux
    >>>> has failures.

    >
    > Sure ....
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/6m6a8c
    >
    > Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.os.linux.ubuntu
    > Subject: Re: [News] Red Hat Developer's Update on PulseAudio,
    > Fedora Live CDs Interview
    > Message-ID: Xns9A7D9779E7902thisnthatadelphianet@66.250.146.12 8
    > Date: 11 Apr 2008 18:53:55 GMT
    >
    >

    >> Dan, you're probably a nice guy, but we get a ton of "works
    >> for me" crap in COLA and most times it's just people telling
    >> lies.

    >
    > Well sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not in COLA. I'm reading
    > these posts in the Ubuntu group. The only reason they are going
    > to COLA is because whomever started the thread had it crossposted
    > there...and to Vista groups, which I removed because this has
    > nothing to do with Vista.
    >
    > I'm NOT a Linux pusher, I still use Windows most of the time
    > since I'd just installed Linux a few weeks ago, maybe a month+
    > ago, and still checking out apps and learning Linux. There are
    > things I like and things I don't like.
    >
    > Believe what you want to believe. It's painfully obvious that you
    > are completely anti-Linux, just like some are completely anti-MS,
    > and have such strong preconceived beliefs that it doesn't really
    > matter what anyone says about any particular Linux item,
    > everyone's a liar, and nothing works out-of-the-box.
    >
    >
    >>> No, we just refuse to accept that Linux has the failures
    >>> that YOU and Funkenbusch et al claim.

    >>
    >> Well I posted one last week in the printer thread. You boobs
    >> went all over the place blaiming me.
    >>
    >> Just like I figured you would.
    >>
    >> Then I dropped the bomb on you where the www.linuxprinting.org
    >> site clearly explains why the included driver (Ubuntu/HP)
    >> does not work.

    >
    > Yeah, right. Complaint about the open source driver, which
    > recommends using their other driver for a specific printer.
    > Rather than attempt using that other driver, blames the first for
    > not working. Then blames the responder for not knowing about its
    > post from several weeks earlier, not mentioned. But it is not
    > the first time that it has blamed the poster.
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/599u38
    >
    > Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.os.windows-xp,
    > microsoft.public.windows.vista.general, alt.os.linux.ubuntu
    > Subject: Re: how open source has influenced Windows Server 2008 ..
    > Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 03:21:24 +0000 (UTC)
    > Message-ID: fu3rbk$kmf$1@registered.motzarella.org
    >
    > Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >
    >

    >> Oh, I see you've met Redhat!!!
    >> https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/

    >
    > Why do you continually crosspost to other newsgroups? Are you so
    > desperate for attention? Is your aim to start flame wars between
    > newsgroups? usenet used to be a relatively friendly place until
    > the likes of you started abusing it.
    >
    > Your immature posting style says so much about your obvious lack
    > of education / intelligence. I hope it is the former as that can
    > be remedied.
    >
    >
    >> You idiots still couldn't get it right because you kept
    >> claiming the driver was included with Ubuntu, which it is. It
    >> doesn't work correctly however.

    >
    > Calling posters "idiots" is intent to provoke anger and disruption.
    >
    > http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killf..._troll_faq.htm
    >
    >
    Subject: 3.4 The nasty Troll
    >
    > If anyone does anything which will interfere with the troll's
    > ability to cause mayhem, they can become very nasty, posting
    > from obviously incorrect variations of the name etc. insults,
    > call them netcops, netnannies, homosexuals.
    >
    > also
    >
    > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
    >
    >
    7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics [...]
    >
    > [3.] Put your opponent off guard by insulting him. The
    > liberal use of profanity and vulgarisms can be very effective,
    > particularly when used against you more dignified opponents.
    > Your experience as a school yard bully can be handy here.
    >
    >
    >> That's just one example.

    >
    > See above.
    >
    >> Same thing with the Linux sound clusterfsck although to *your
    >> credit* you at least acknowledged that a problem exists. The
    >> others danced all over the place denying it despit my posting
    >> a linke where the developers themselves admit sound under
    >> Linux is a mess.

    >
    > http://groups.google.com/group/comp....5fa6299546d5d7
    >
    >
    > Linux is good for high fidelity easy listening.
    >
    > I took a little trip away from home with my laptop, an older Dell
    > C600, 0.85 GHz Intel Latitude, I stopped by a local department
    > store and for $25 US + $2 local tax, purchased an Altec Lansing
    > BAX1121 stereo sound system with 4" woofer. Picked a free MP3
    > jazz tune download site like
    >
    > http://www.airmenofnote.com/sounds/TOC.htm
    >
    > (Airmen of Note is a premium US military band jazz combo.)
    >
    > Voila! Using Totem Movie Player 2.20.20 in Ubuntu 7.10 Gutsy
    > Gibbon, I had room filling high fidelity volume. Having played
    > professionally, I could really appreciate the impressive quality
    > sound. Dell did a good job on this laptop with the sound chip.
    >
    > No gaps, great filling, good taste, less calories .... :-)
    >
    > Meanwhile listening, also spent at leisure browsing the 'net,
    > downloading, updating software without having to reboot. (Linux
    > only requires a reboot if OS image is modified.)
    >
    > Thank you again Linux for a job well done.
    >
    >
    >> You can't admit that Linux has problems. You'll never admit
    >> it.
    >>
    >> That's why it's not even worth it.

    >
    > Whine, whine, whine ....
    >
    >>> We see the failures as deliberate on your part, as we
    >>> believe that people just can't be that stupid.

    >>
    >> Sure you do. That's because you refuse to look at the facts.

    >
    > Tail wagging the dog.
    >
    >>> If Wintrolls were as stupid as their fake personas would
    >>> have us believe, their hearts would not have the good sense
    >>> to keep beating.

    >>
    >> So all these different posts made by different people with
    >> Ubuntu freezing problems that DFS is posting are all fake?
    >>
    >> Sure....
    >>
    >> It's all one big conspiracy.

    >
    > No, it is taken out of context posts to disrupt this forum.
    >
    >>>> You prefer to discredit the poster and blame everything
    >>>> under the sun for Linux's inability to function.
    >>>
    >>> Blaming a lying, Wintroll is perfectly ok, their inability
    >>> to tell the truth as evidenced by hiding behind dozens of
    >>> throaway fake ids, is deserving of the lowest of regard.

    >>
    >> Yawn.......
    >>
    >> Address the points, not the person.

    >
    > Sure.
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/6hecfx
    >
    > Subject: Re: Roy Schestowitz
    > Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:37:41 +0100
    > Message-ID: MPG.22710e9e34014f6b9896a3@news.motzarella.org
    >
    >> He has software that takes RSS feeds, sorts them, searches for
    >> certain phrases, makes comments taken from a database and
    >> spits out the stuff to every corner of the Internet.

    >
    > Unlike you - a troll with a chip on your shoulder who manually
    > creates so much ****e aka anti-Roy spam that no-one, that's
    > right, NO-ONE wants to read, that you've single-handedly reduced
    > the appeal and effectiveness of a newsgroup.
    >
    > Please, go create another group and move to it. If you really
    > have a voice someone wants to listen to, you'll get them moving
    > over to it.
    >
    > You can get treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder you know!
    >
    >>>> It happens all the time in COLA.
    >>>
    >>> As it should, Wintroll.

    >>
    >> Hahaha! I just took you apart, again.......

    >
    > http://groups.google.com/group/comp....18fb3cdef317aa
    >
    > Hadron wrote:
    >> It IS because of him and two other useless people in
    >> particular (CBFalconer and Harold "old school" Stevens
    >> (probably both Willy nyms) that I started to drift from the
    >> Ubuntu fan boy zone.

    >
    > "I got my ass kicked up around my shoulders in AOLU, so in a lame
    > attempt to hide the ass-kicking I received and deserved, I puffed
    > out my hollow chest, chortled 'victory' and acted like I walked
    > away from the group."


    According to Quack's "logic", nearly all the other posters in AOLU must
    be my nyms, as almost *everyone* got tired of his drivel, told him what
    they thought of him & binned him.
    LMAO!
    What a dork!

    --
    Most people are sheep. *
    Microsoft is very effective
    at fleecing the flockers.



+ Reply to Thread