Printable View
I posted this to alt.linux but there doesn't appear to be much activity
there..............
Can someone say (ok, write in a post :-)) what is the base kernel used by
Backtrack 3?
That is, is it compatible with one of the major linux kernels, and if so
which one?
Thanks,
FACE
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:29:59 -0400, FACE wrote:
[color=blue]
> I posted this to alt.linux but there doesn't appear to be much activity
> there..............
>
> Can someone say (ok, write in a post :-)) what is the base kernel used by
> Backtrack 3?[/color]
You don't know how to use Google? You didn't think to check the site's
website? Here's a quote from Wikipedia:
BackTrack 3 was released on June 19, 2008. New additions include SAINT and
Maltego. Nessus was not included in this release, and the developers
decided not to upgrade from kernel version 2.6.21.5.
[color=blue]
> That is, is it compatible with one of the major linux kernels, and if so
> which one?[/color]
Sorry, this question doesn't even make sense. Can't be answered.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: [url]http://improve-usenet.org[/url]
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:46:56 -0500 in alt.os.linux.slackware, Dan C
<youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> in glistered weave wrote large for all to
see:
[color=blue]
>On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:29:59 -0400, FACE wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I posted this to alt.linux but there doesn't appear to be much activity
>> there..............
>>
>> Can someone say (ok, write in a post :-)) what is the base kernel used by
>> Backtrack 3?[/color]
>
>You don't know how to use Google?[/color]
Is it better than Gopher?
[color=blue]
>You didn't think to check the site's
>website? Here's a quote from Wikipedia:
>
>BackTrack 3 was released on June 19, 2008. New additions include SAINT and
>Maltego. Nessus was not included in this release, and the developers
>decided not to upgrade from kernel version 2.6.21.5.
>[color=green]
>> That is, is it compatible with one of the major linux kernels, and if so
>> which one?[/color]
>
>Sorry, this question doesn't even make sense. Can't be answered.[/color]
Sorry. That question showed that I was aware of the bt3 kernel, but i did
not know if it was compatible with redhat, suse or any one of the others or
if it was functionally unique.......
Too tough a question I guess............ ;-)
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:24:44 -0400, FACE wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Sorry, this question doesn't even make sense. Can't be answered.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Sorry. That question showed that I was aware of the bt3 kernel, but i
> did not know if it was compatible with redhat, suse or any one of the
> others or if it was functionally unique.......
>
> Too tough a question I guess............ ;-)[/color]
Bugger off, Win-droid.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: [url]http://improve-usenet.org[/url]
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:57:33 -0500 in alt.os.linux.slackware, Dan C
<youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> in glistered weave wrote large for all to
see:
[color=blue]
>On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:24:44 -0400, FACE wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Sorry, this question doesn't even make sense. Can't be answered.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
>> Sorry. That question showed that I was aware of the bt3 kernel, but i
>> did not know if it was compatible with redhat, suse or any one of the
>> others or if it was functionally unique.......
>>
>> Too tough a question I guess............ ;-)[/color]
>
>Bugger off, Win-droid.[/color]
There are some nice people on these groups.
You, asshole, are not one of them.
FACE schreef:[color=blue]
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:57:33 -0500 in alt.os.linux.slackware, Dan C
> <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> in glistered weave wrote large for all to
> see:
>[color=green]
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:24:44 -0400, FACE wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>> Sorry, this question doesn't even make sense. Can't be answered.
>>> Sorry. That question showed that I was aware of the bt3 kernel, but i
>>> did not know if it was compatible with redhat, suse or any one of the
>>> others or if it was functionally unique.......
>>>
>>> Too tough a question I guess............ ;-)[/color]
>> Bugger off, Win-droid.[/color]
>
> There are some nice people on these groups.
>
> You, asshole, are not one of them.[/color]
Stupid questions provoke tantalizing responses. You, are too lazy too
visit the developer's own home to look up what you want to know in the
release notes.
Furthermore, Backtrack is a Slackware rip-off and I am fed-up with
script-kiddie wannabees who find they are not tough enough for the
real Slackware and instead find themselves a rip-off.
Eric
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:12:41 -0400, FACE wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Too tough a question I guess............ ;-)[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Bugger off, Win-droid.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> There are some nice people on these groups.[/color]
Where?
[color=blue]
> You, asshole, are not one of them.[/color]
OK, so you're a Win-droid, *and* a clueless n00b.
Bugger off, doofus.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: [url]http://improve-usenet.org[/url]
<modquote>
On 2008-10-21, Eric Hameleers <eric1@sox.homeip.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Furthermore, Backtrack is a Slackware rip-off and I am fed-up with
> script-kiddie wannabees who find they are not tough enough for the
> real Slackware and instead find themselves a rip-off.[/color]
</modquote>
-RW