Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features? - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features? - Microsoft Windows ; Do they risk being caught? http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ser...w/compete.mspx "Linux uses clear text for authentication, and does not allow the configurations of individual permissions to the file level. Native support of standard encryption technologies is handled as an add-on." "Linux does not deliver ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 48

Thread: Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

  1. Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

    Do they risk being caught?

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ser...w/compete.mspx

    "Linux uses clear text for authentication, and does not allow the
    configurations of individual permissions to the file level. Native support
    of standard encryption technologies is handled as an add-on."

    "Linux does not deliver comparable heterogeneous interoperability."

    "More than five options for a JFS, which are new to Linux; the depth of
    integration and regression testing can be scattered, and the number of
    real-world implementations limited."

  2. Re: Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

    totojepast wrote:

    > Do they risk being caught?
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ser...w/compete.mspx
    >
    > "Linux uses clear text for authentication, and does not allow the
    > configurations of individual permissions to the file level. Native support
    > of standard encryption technologies is handled as an add-on."
    >
    > "Linux does not deliver comparable heterogeneous interoperability."
    >
    > "More than five options for a JFS, which are new to Linux; the depth of
    > integration and regression testing can be scattered, and the number of
    > real-world implementations limited."

    MS must be getting "very" worried if they are comparing there server
    software with a non-existent, insecure, unreliable, unconnectable peice
    of software like GNU/Linux.

    --
    On my Win 98 box.
    Why? Because I like bug catching.
    Or maybe because I love OSS!


  3. Re: Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

    On 18 Sep 2003 11:35:43 -0700, totojepast@atlas.cz (totojepast) wrote:

    >Do they risk being caught?
    >
    >http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ser...w/compete.mspx
    >
    >"Linux uses clear text for authentication, and does not allow the
    >configurations of individual permissions to the file level. Native support
    >of standard encryption technologies is handled as an add-on."


    Technically this is not a lie unless you consider omission to be
    lying. Telnet authentication is performed in clear text. However I do
    think that it's misleading. If Windows clearly were superior to Linux
    then Microsoft shouldn't need to resort to omission to demonstrate it
    as such.

    jj

    >"Linux does not deliver comparable heterogeneous interoperability."
    >
    >"More than five options for a JFS, which are new to Linux; the depth of
    >integration and regression testing can be scattered, and the number of
    >real-world implementations limited."



  4. Re: Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

    On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:33:53 GMT, John Jones
    wrote:


    >Technically this is not a lie unless you consider omission to be
    >lying.


    In court you are enjoined to tell the truth, the whole truth and
    nothing but the truth.

    In Rudyard Kipling's 'Stalky and Co', the heroes got into deep trouble
    with the headmaster for giving the impression that money lending was
    rife among the boys. The boys were masters at 'suppressio veriti,
    suggestio falsii' (suppress the truth, suggest the false).

    This lesson has not been lost on spinmasters.



  5. Re: Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

    On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:33:53 +0000, John Jones wrote:

    > On 18 Sep 2003 11:35:43 -0700, totojepast@atlas.cz (totojepast) wrote:
    >
    >>Do they risk being caught?
    >>
    >>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ser...w/compete.mspx
    >>
    >>"Linux uses clear text for authentication, and does not allow the
    >>configurations of individual permissions to the file level. Native support
    >>of standard encryption technologies is handled as an add-on."

    >
    > Technically this is not a lie unless you consider omission to be
    > lying. Telnet authentication is performed in clear text. However I do
    > think that it's misleading. If Windows clearly were superior to Linux
    > then Microsoft shouldn't need to resort to omission to demonstrate it
    > as such.


    Telnet and FTP is turned off by default for years now.
    I guess no one at MS ever did an "ls -l" to see what permissions were set
    to at the file level (and directory level).
    There is crypto support IN the kernel. See CryptoAPI and crypto hardware
    support. There are also "add-on" encryption technologies for just about
    any technology you would like to name. So... in summary the above
    paragraph has not one but three unequivocal lies.


    >>"Linux does not deliver comparable heterogeneous interoperability."


    Does MS come with with the ability to be an AFP server? (Linux does), does
    MS come with the ability to be a Netware client? (Linux does), does MS come
    with the ability to be an NFS client and/or server? (Linux does), Linux
    comes with Samba and several other heterogenous interoperability services.
    There is even an MS-Exchange Server for Linux, though it is an expensive
    add on. So... another lie.

    >>"More than five options for a JFS, which are new to Linux; the depth of
    >>integration and regression testing can be scattered, and the number of
    >>real-world implementations limited."


    ext3 has been around for a couple of years now (3? 4?) and it has been
    extensively tested and one can convert between the older but very reliable
    ext2 on the fly and it has been the default FS on Red Hat for 3 years now.
    ReiserFS has been around for several years also and (I believe) it has
    been the default fs for SuSE. I don't know enough about IBM-JFS and
    SGI-XFS to comment. So while the above paragraph is somewhat weasel worded
    it is a lie that there is a limited number of real-world implementations.

    I read it as weasel words and five lies. YMMV

    -DU-...etc...

  6. Re: Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

    In news:3f6a270d.8481659@news.paradise.net.nz,
    Peter typed:
    > On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:33:53 GMT, John Jones
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Technically this is not a lie unless you consider omission to be
    >> lying.

    >
    > In court you are enjoined to tell the truth, the whole truth and
    > nothing but the truth.


    which, as we all know, is crap. if not so, witnesses could not be compelled
    to strictly answer questions w/out clarifying themselves.



  7. Re: Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

    In newsan.2003.09.19.05.20.41.763466@nospamremarque.org,
    David Utidjian typed:
    > On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:33:53 +0000, John Jones wrote:
    >
    >> On 18 Sep 2003 11:35:43 -0700, totojepast@atlas.cz (totojepast)
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Do they risk being caught?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ser...w/compete.mspx
    >>>
    >>> "Linux uses clear text for authentication, and does not allow the
    >>> configurations of individual permissions to the file level. Native
    >>> support of standard encryption technologies is handled as an
    >>> add-on."

    >>
    >> Technically this is not a lie unless you consider omission to be
    >> lying. Telnet authentication is performed in clear text. However I do
    >> think that it's misleading. If Windows clearly were superior to Linux
    >> then Microsoft shouldn't need to resort to omission to demonstrate it
    >> as such.


    > I guess no one at MS ever did an "ls -l" to see what permissions were
    > set to at the file level (and directory level).


    they're probably talking about setting permissions at the file level for
    individuals- there's only world, group, and owner permissions. if i wanted
    to give "bob" permission to my file, but nobody else in bob's groups,
    there's no easy way to do this.





  8. Re: Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

    That's what they meant.

    "ed" wrote in message
    news:C3yab.445$721.285@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com. ..
    > In newsan.2003.09.19.05.20.41.763466@nospamremarque.org,
    > David Utidjian typed:
    > > On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:33:53 +0000, John Jones wrote:
    > >
    > >> On 18 Sep 2003 11:35:43 -0700, totojepast@atlas.cz (totojepast)
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> Do they risk being caught?
    > >>>
    > >>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ser...w/compete.mspx
    > >>>
    > >>> "Linux uses clear text for authentication, and does not allow the
    > >>> configurations of individual permissions to the file level. Native
    > >>> support of standard encryption technologies is handled as an
    > >>> add-on."
    > >>
    > >> Technically this is not a lie unless you consider omission to be
    > >> lying. Telnet authentication is performed in clear text. However I do
    > >> think that it's misleading. If Windows clearly were superior to Linux
    > >> then Microsoft shouldn't need to resort to omission to demonstrate it
    > >> as such.

    >
    > > I guess no one at MS ever did an "ls -l" to see what permissions were
    > > set to at the file level (and directory level).

    >
    > they're probably talking about setting permissions at the file level for
    > individuals- there's only world, group, and owner permissions. if i

    wanted
    > to give "bob" permission to my file, but nobody else in bob's groups,
    > there's no easy way to do this.
    >
    >
    >
    >




  9. Re: Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

    On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 07:16:50 +0000, ed wrote:

    > they're probably talking about setting permissions at the file level for
    > individuals- there's only world, group, and owner permissions. if i wanted
    > to give "bob" permission to my file, but nobody else in bob's groups,
    > there's no easy way to do this.



    Sure there is! Suse 8.2 and Enterprise 8 both have ACL support. I think
    Red Hat 9 has it also but I might be mistaken, Red Hat 3 AS is going to
    have ACL support also.

  10. Re: Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

    ed wrote:
    > they're probably talking about setting permissions at the file level
    > for individuals- there's only world, group, and owner permissions.
    > if i wanted to give "bob" permission to my file, but nobody else in
    > bob's groups, there's no easy way to do this.


    tecnically you can do it with groups, by creating a new guest-reader group
    for your docs, and adding bob to that group. remember that users can belong
    to multiple groups.

    i agree with others that acls, etc, are out there - but you can do more with
    groups than simple things like this.



  11. Re: Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
    On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 07:16:50 GMT,
    ed wrote:
    > In newsan.2003.09.19.05.20.41.763466@nospamremarque.org,
    > David Utidjian typed:
    >> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:33:53 +0000, John Jones wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 18 Sep 2003 11:35:43 -0700, totojepast@atlas.cz (totojepast)
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Do they risk being caught?
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ser...w/compete.mspx
    >>>>
    >>>> "Linux uses clear text for authentication, and does not allow the
    >>>> configurations of individual permissions to the file level. Native
    >>>> support of standard encryption technologies is handled as an
    >>>> add-on."
    >>>
    >>> Technically this is not a lie unless you consider omission to be
    >>> lying. Telnet authentication is performed in clear text. However I do
    >>> think that it's misleading. If Windows clearly were superior to Linux
    >>> then Microsoft shouldn't need to resort to omission to demonstrate it
    >>> as such.

    >
    >> I guess no one at MS ever did an "ls -l" to see what permissions were
    >> set to at the file level (and directory level).

    >
    > they're probably talking about setting permissions at the file level for
    > individuals- there's only world, group, and owner permissions. if i wanted
    > to give "bob" permission to my file, but nobody else in bob's groups,
    > there's no easy way to do this.
    >
    >


    Sure there is, use ACLs.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQE/avhtd90bcYOAWPYRAtyOAJ9uTFtW5K13khMBHsuGMLGx0NAHNQ CeOWUx
    EfYGVIDkSXPSDJJ6wiIyA6Q=
    =l3Xg
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock

    Linux, because eventually, you grow up enough to be trusted with a fork()

  12. Re: Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

    "ed" wrote in message news:...
    > In newsan.2003.09.19.05.20.41.763466@nospamremarque.org,
    > David Utidjian typed:


    [snip]

    > > I guess no one at MS ever did an "ls -l" to see what permissions were
    > > set to at the file level (and directory level).

    >
    > they're probably talking about setting permissions at the file level for
    > individuals- there's only world, group, and owner permissions. if i wanted
    > to give "bob" permission to my file, but nobody else in bob's groups,
    > there's no easy way to do this.


    Linux does have ACLs. They have been an add-on for some time and come
    standard with Red Hat 9 and, possibly, other distros. It is a full
    implementation of POSIX ACLs. More info at: http://acl.bestbits.at/

    -DU-...etc...

  13. Re: Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

    Freeride wrote in message news:...
    > On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 07:16:50 +0000, ed wrote:
    >
    > > they're probably talking about setting permissions at the file level for
    > > individuals- there's only world, group, and owner permissions. if i wanted
    > > to give "bob" permission to my file, but nobody else in bob's groups,
    > > there's no easy way to do this.

    >
    >
    > Sure there is! Suse 8.2 and Enterprise 8 both have ACL support. I think
    > Red Hat 9 has it also but I might be mistaken, Red Hat 3 AS is going to
    > have ACL support also.


    to all who replied to my comment- sure you can use ACL's, but the
    context here was build in support for use level permissions. I
    believe only suse includes ACL w/ their distribution; i'm also aware
    it's in the 2.5 development tree, but it's not yet a standard part of
    the kernel.

    and no, creating groups w/ a single user in them is not a good
    solution.

  14. Re: Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

    ed wrote:

    > and no, creating groups w/ a single user in them is not a good
    > solution.


    because you say so (now)?

    look, it is implicit in the "problem" that you've got multiple users on a
    system or network, and you want to use permissions to manage them. users &
    groups have been solving that problem for 30 years (or whatever). there are
    more modern solutions, but users & groups continue to work all over the IT
    world.

    OTOH, if it is just you, bob, and one file - use email



  15. Re: Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

    : news@atwistedweb.com (ed)
    : to all who replied to my comment- sure you can use ACL's, but the
    : context here was build in support for use level permissions. I
    : believe only suse includes ACL w/ their distribution; i'm also aware
    : it's in the 2.5 development tree, but it's not yet a standard part of
    : the kernel.

    Somebody mentioned redhat 9 has them by default.

    : and no, creating groups w/ a single user in them is not a good
    : solution.

    But the claim wans't "linux's method is inferior", it was
    "linux can't do it". The latter claim is still wrong,
    even absent acls. Plus which you can get acls with linux,
    even by default in some distributions.

    And that's "with two users in them". Unless you mean, to create each
    user with membership in that user's group, and providing a chgrp tool
    that would allow donating to these user-shadow groups. But you probably
    didn't mean that, since it's actually a fairly good answer to "I want to
    share a file with a person" problems.

    Further, it's not even true that user/group based permissions
    are inferior in all things in all contexts, even if we're
    restricting the topic to sharing of files among users
    more generally than "give to bob".

    So, all in all, you have to significantly weaken the original
    claim, and make lots of contextual assumptions, before you can
    coax some truth out of it.


    Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

  16. Re: Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

    In news:aAIab.2053$YO5.1494092@news3.news.adelphia.ne t,
    Lefty typed:
    > ed wrote:
    >
    >> and no, creating groups w/ a single user in them is not a good
    >> solution.

    >
    > because you say so (now)?


    no, because it's a stupid workaround. there's a reason that there are
    "users", and "groups". "groups" are, pretty much by definition, meant to
    contain more than one thing.

    > look, it is implicit in the "problem" that you've got multiple users
    > on a system or network, and you want to use permissions to manage
    > them. users & groups have been solving that problem for 30 years (or
    > whatever). there are more modern solutions, but users & groups
    > continue to work all over the IT world.
    >
    > OTOH, if it is just you, bob, and one file - use email


    yeah, that's a great solution- you share a computer system with bob, and you
    have to email the file to him. and what if it's hundreds of files? and you
    want bob to have access to all of them, but sally, mike, dave, and the new
    york giants to each have access to different subsets of those files? create
    an individual group for each of them? see why it's stupid now?



  17. Re: Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

    In news:1064010271@sheol.org,
    Wayne Throop typed:
    >> news@atwistedweb.com (ed)
    >> to all who replied to my comment- sure you can use ACL's, but the
    >> context here was build in support for use level permissions. I
    >> believe only suse includes ACL w/ their distribution; i'm also aware
    >> it's in the 2.5 development tree, but it's not yet a standard part of
    >> the kernel.

    >
    > Somebody mentioned redhat 9 has them by default.
    >
    >> and no, creating groups w/ a single user in them is not a good
    >> solution.

    >
    > But the claim wans't "linux's method is inferior", it was
    > "linux can't do it". The latter claim is still wrong,
    > even absent acls. Plus which you can get acls with linux,
    > even by default in some distributions.


    no, it really *can't* do it w/o acl- you can work around it, but it *can't*
    set permissions at the user level. it can set permissions for *groups*,
    which can contain just 1 user, but that's still not setting permissions at
    the user level. there IS a difference.

    > And that's "with two users in them". Unless you mean, to create each
    > user with membership in that user's group, and providing a chgrp tool
    > that would allow donating to these user-shadow groups. But you
    > probably didn't mean that, since it's actually a fairly good answer
    > to "I want to share a file with a person" problems.


    no, it's not a good answer- to do this, you would either need to create a
    group that only the user belongs to whenever you create a new account, or
    have admin priviledges to create groups. either solution is far from being
    a good one.

    > Further, it's not even true that user/group based permissions
    > are inferior in all things in all contexts, even if we're
    > restricting the topic to sharing of files among users
    > more generally than "give to bob".
    >
    > So, all in all, you have to significantly weaken the original
    > claim, and make lots of contextual assumptions, before you can
    > coax some truth out of it.




  18. Re: Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

    :: Lefty
    :: OTOH, if it is just you, bob, and one file - use email

    : "ed"
    : yeah, that's a great solution- you share a computer system with bob,
    : and you have to email the file to him. and what if it's hundreds of
    : files? and you want bob to have access to all of them, but sally,
    : mike, dave, and the new york giants to each have access to different
    : subsets of those files? create an individual group for each of them?
    : see why it's stupid now?

    The claim wasn't that it was "stupid".
    The claim was it couldn't be done.
    THe claim is still wrong.
    And linux has ACLs for anybody that wants them in any event.

    And further, with ACLs, you end up needing to visit each file whenever
    you decide you need to change access. With thousands of files and with
    people with changing levels of privilege, you end up with an
    administrative nightmare. See why ACLs aren't the be-all and end-all
    now? And in fact, for large-scale permissions management, tagging uses
    with of abstract keys is better than tagging files with lists of
    specific users.

    :: Wayne Throop
    :: But the claim wans't "linux's method is inferior", it was "linux
    :: can't do it". The latter claim is still wrong,

    : no, it really *can't* do it w/o acl- you can work around it, but it
    : *can't* set permissions at the user level.

    You can set permissions specific to any user to any file.
    That's the "it" asserted to be impossible But it can be.

    Your claim that it's "only a workaround" is irrelevant; you can
    call it a "workaround" if you want, but at the end of the day, one
    specific-but-arbitrary user has been granted access
    to one specificbut-arbitrary file.

    I've already said there are things that can be done with ACLs that can't
    be done with groups, such as grant *differing* *levels* of access
    to different users. But that wasn't the feature that was asserted
    to be lacking; the assertion was in essence that access to files
    couldn't be specified user-by-user. Which turns out not to be true.

    And all that was a simple aside, since
    linux DOES have ACLs for anybody that wants them in any event.


    Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

  19. Re: Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

    In news:1064024400@sheol.org,
    Wayne Throop typed:
    >>> Lefty
    >>> OTOH, if it is just you, bob, and one file - use email

    >
    >> "ed"
    >> yeah, that's a great solution- you share a computer system with bob,
    >> and you have to email the file to him. and what if it's hundreds of
    >> files? and you want bob to have access to all of them, but sally,
    >> mike, dave, and the new york giants to each have access to different
    >> subsets of those files? create an individual group for each of them?
    >> see why it's stupid now?

    >
    > The claim wasn't that it was "stupid".


    nope, but it's still stupide.

    > The claim was it couldn't be done.
    > THe claim is still wrong


    what was claimed *can't* be done. you can use a work-around to get largely
    the same result, but it's not the same.
    ..
    > And linux has ACLs for anybody that wants them in any event.


    the claim was also regarding what was built-in.

    > And further, with ACLs, you end up needing to visit each file whenever
    > you decide you need to change access. With thousands of files and
    > with people with changing levels of privilege, you end up with an
    > administrative nightmare. See why ACLs aren't the be-all and end-all
    > now? And in fact, for large-scale permissions management, tagging
    > uses with of abstract keys is better than tagging files with lists of
    > specific users.


    *shrug*. i know that, you know that. but you know what? it's irrelevant.
    i'm not arguing relative merits- just the claim.

    >>> Wayne Throop
    >>> But the claim wans't "linux's method is inferior", it was "linux
    >>> can't do it". The latter claim is still wrong,

    >
    >> no, it really *can't* do it w/o acl- you can work around it, but it
    >> *can't* set permissions at the user level.

    >
    > You can set permissions specific to any user to any file.
    > That's the "it" asserted to be impossible But it can be.


    no, that was *not* the "it" asserted to be impossible. "it" was that file
    permissions couldn't be set at the user level, not that you couldn't set
    permissions that only one user could get to. it may be a subtle difference,
    but a difference it is.

    > Your claim that it's "only a workaround" is irrelevant;


    no, it's central to whether the claim is true of false. i.e. i may claim
    that stock, a chevy yugo can't go 150mph. you may "workaround" that by
    pushing it with a mclaren f1, or throwing the damn thing off a cliff. still
    doesn't make my claim any less true. (yeah, yeah, extreme example.) =)

    > you can
    > call it a "workaround" if you want, but at the end of the day, one
    > specific-but-arbitrary user has been granted access
    > to one specificbut-arbitrary file.


    and in my example, at the end of the day, the yugo's still gone 150mph,
    right?

    > I've already said there are things that can be done with ACLs that
    > can't be done with groups, such as grant *differing* *levels* of
    > access
    > to different users. But that wasn't the feature that was asserted
    > to be lacking; the assertion was in essence that access to files
    > couldn't be specified user-by-user. Which turns out not to be true.
    >
    > And all that was a simple aside, since
    > linux DOES have ACLs for anybody that wants them in any event.


    as an add-on, until 2.5 becomes the production kernel.



  20. Re: Has Microsoft lied about the Linux features?

    :: The claim was it couldn't be done. THe claim is still wrong

    : "ed"
    : what was claimed *can't* be done. you can use a work-around to get
    : largely the same result, but it's not the same.

    The claim was "you can't achieve the result", not that
    "you can't use ACLs". Nor was "the result" in question one
    that invoked any of the things ACLs can do that groups can't.

    You have agreed that one can "get the largely the same result",
    and since the "largely" includes the functionality of the
    original claim, that original claim was still wrong.

    : the claim was also regarding what was built-in.

    Wrong. Here's the quote:

    "Linux uses clear text for authentication, and does not allow the
    configurations of individual permissions to the file level. Native
    support of standard encryption technologies is handled as an add-on."

    As you can see, the "handled as an add-on" is talking about
    "support of standard encryption technologies". There is no
    such clause that applies for per-user permissions.

    The closest you can come is to suppose "permissions" encompases those
    things that ACLs can do that groups can not (ie, differing permission
    states for the individual, as opposed to "of individuual[s] to the
    file level". That's an arguable point. The "built-in" isn't.

    Plus, it's shipped built in in more than one distribution.

    : i'm not arguing relative merits- just the claim.

    Right then. The original claim is still wrong, on two counts.

    1. groups can be arranged to match an arbitrary user list
    to an arbitrary file, and
    2. linux has ACLs

    : as an add-on, until 2.5 becomes the production kernel.

    Irrelevant, see above. Doubly irrelevant, since it ships
    built in for more than one distribution.

    Regardless of the claim, I think we agree that

    1. ACLs can do things that groups cannot
    2. linux has ACLs for anybody who wants them
    and they are enforced by the kernel
    3. groups can often be (not "always are": just "can *often* be")
    much easier to adminster than acls (and I've admined both)

    "Bow to your partner.
    Bow to the gent across the hall.
    And that is all."
    --- Bugs Bunny, in "Hillbilly Hare"

    There. Peace, tranquility, and agreement reign at last.

    "Grab a fence post, hold it tight
    Whomp your partner with all your might
    Hit him in the shin, hit him in the head
    Hit him again, the critter ain't dead "

    --- ibid


    Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast