Linux-Advocacy Digest #251, Volume #28 Sat, 5 Aug 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: God damm Microsoft ("Spud")
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: I'm curious (Cihl)
Re: LINUX, OF COURSE!! (Cihl)
Re: post-installation SCSI setup?? ("Alan Murrell")
Re: LINUX, OF COURSE!! (Cihl)
Re: I'm curious ("Spud")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: God damm Microsoft
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 15:18:48 -0700
[snips]
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Spud wrote:
> >
> > [snips]
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Oh...and guess what...I earn a hell of a lot more than you, too.
> >
> > Possibly. However, unless you happen to _know_ what I make, then the
above
> > is sheer assertion, nothing but hot air, and there is no reason to take
you
> > seriously - on any matter whatsoever. Very well, you have my permission
to
> > _tell_ us here exactly what I make. Did you include the side business
as
> > well?
>
> You're a windroid, there's no way you're getting paid in the $100k
> range....for two reasons: MS machines have lower productivity,
> and MS hardware (10 MS-boxes = 1 small Unix box) ends up requiring
> tons of licenses for things that are standard parts of any Unix
> distribution....all of what *should* be pay going to you ends up
> instead going to Microsoft in licensing costs.
All of which says two things: 1) You have _no_ idea what I get paid, and 2)
As a result of that, you were simply lying through your teeth.
What does this tell us about you? It tells us you are twisted. Your hatred
of Microsoft has led you down the path of folly, where you post such things
without a shred of evidence to back them up. It tells us that you have
traded in your reason, your analytical skills, even your integrity, all in
the name of hate.
Aaron, all I can say is, I pity you. Such a twisted mind may be
reparable... but you have to want to seek help, first.
> > BTW, did you ever get around to telling us what those 15 languages you
> > program in actually were? Last I checked, we'd eliminated C,
VB/VBScript,
>
> 1. I never claimed to write in Visual Basic.
> 2. I never claimed to be a professional C programmer. I can
> write functional, efficient C code, that works.
Except we already determined you don't actually know C, so that's a load of
crap.
> You specified to NOT use any benefit of a compiler or lint to
> check the code. Considering that I didn't even write the
> code, it's hardly surprising that I didn't pick up mistakes
> that I myself don't make. 2nd, you failed to acknowledge
> several errors that I DID detect (such as where I noted that
> used equality assignment instead of test for equality).
Nope; you did pick out several correctly, and I even acknowledged them. You
also _incorrectly_ identified a couple.
> This is the equivalent of running a 30-second videotape and
> challening "spot EVERY single driver error, both legal
> and 'stylistic' shown.
Except you can go back over the tape as many times as you want, to make
sure.
> The only true error I failed to pick up was the fact that you
> tried to use free() with the wrong pointer. Big Freaking
> Deal: ONE test run would have been sufficient to isolate
> that problem.
Would it? Really? I see; you rely on how the program happens to work, with
a given compiler and given machine, to determine whether it is correct. You
know what this tells me? It tells me you can't actually program in _any_
language. Oh, you can manipulate the symbols, maybe, but you have
absolutely no idea what programming actually entails.
> > Still waiting for you to post earnings. Ho hum. Crickets are chirping.
Chirp, chirp.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: 5 Aug 2000 22:24:51 GMT
On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 04:07:51 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Name one.
It's 125 to be precise.
http://www.moshplant.com/prob/prob02/wild_scientists.html
That'd mean that compared to me and most of my friends, he's dead last.
What a dolt, huh ?
(-;
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I'm curious
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 22:28:47 GMT
2 + 2 wrote:
>
> Nick wrote in message <9yZi5.12318$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >Obviously you're so busy you've not got time to peruse these newsgroups and
> >note down everybody who is contributing to them just like I don't have time
> >to reply to your message.
>
> I'd second that, except I don't have time. :)
>
> 2 + 2
> >
> >Nick.
How do you find time to write such stupid responses, anyway?
> >"Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Tell me something, because the curiosity is killing me... I, and all the
> >> people I know (at least the ones that are really good at what they do)
> >> are so in demand that none of us have time to follow many threads on a
> >> regular basis, let alone for posting on a regular basis. For instance,
> >> I'm taking a break from building some machines to start whistler beta
> >> testing (I'm in the official program, so I don't want to hear about
> >> piracy, and no, you can't have a copy) to post this. I'll probably
> >> follow it for about a week or so, then I won't have time to hunt for it,
> >> so unless it gets interesting, I won't even mark it for watching and
> >> I'll lose the thread. Yet, there are a number of people within these
> >> groups that claim to be highly in-demand, very knowledgable
> >> professionals in the computer industry and who post here at all hours.
> >> In fact, you can see a few of them posting for literally hours at a
> >> time, if you bother looking at the times between their posts. I'm just
> >> wondering how these people find the time. So, without naming names, are
> >> you all screwing off all day in the news groups instead of working?
> >> (On going to war over religion:)
> >> "You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better
> imaginary
> >friend."
> >> - Rich Jeni
> >>
> >>
> >> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> >> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> >> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
> >
> >
--
You have changed the signature included in your e-mail.
For these changes to take effect, you must restart your computer!
Do you wish to restart your computer now?
[YES] [NO]
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX, OF COURSE!!
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 22:34:58 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Pete, has anyone ever told you you're a complete dufus?
>
> Oh frequently. And I've been called "Moron", "Shithead" etc. It only goes
> to show how naff some people are.
But this is c.o.l.a.! You're supposed to do that, Buttwipe!
> >My post was supposed to be a caricature, or persiflage of a standard
> >troll post.
>
> You posted some untruths, so I corrected them.
No you didn't. You just replaced them with alternative untruths.
(that's okay for c.o.l.a. i guess)
> >Look, it has all the elements: flaming, lying, yelling, and more.
>
> Since I'm not a troll, I have never lied. I have yelled and flamed _after_
> the original poster started spout nonsense about Windows.
It's really hard to spout nonsense about Windows. Most of it is true.
> --
> Pete Goodwin
> ---
> Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
> My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
--
You have changed the signature included in your e-mail.
For these changes to take effect, you must restart your computer!
Do you wish to restart your computer now?
[YES] [NO]
------------------------------
From: "Alan Murrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: post-installation SCSI setup??
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 15:37:31 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (B'ichela) wrote:
> What exactly do you mean by this? What type of devices are you
Okay, you're right, I should have been a tad more specific. I have a Zip
drive attached to a SCSI card that I would like to be able to access.
However, my SCSI card does not seem to be able to be recognized. Here is
the info for the card, which i got from the Win95 info:
Acculogic ISApport/10 adapter SYM53406
Someone suggested I try using the NRC53c406a.O chip setup, and considering
the similarity in "ID numbers", I would like to tryt hat. However, now
that my system is set up, I do not know how to go back and get my system
to recognize, or set up, my SCSI card.
--
Alan Murrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 1147392
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/1777
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX, OF COURSE!!
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 22:40:55 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> My SB16 didn't work, first time.
> >
> >Oh, it didn't, did it? (gr?)
> >
> >And how long ago was that? The SB16 was one of the first soundcards to
> >be supported by Linux.
>
> About a few weeks ago.
Oops. (not kernel, just me)
SB16 is a jumpercard just like to SBPro, isn't it. You have to give
the IRQ and DMA manually for it to work. Windhose does this itself.
That's why hardware detection takes so long on install. (you know,
with all those reboots 'n stuff)
> >> My ESS Allegro does not work now - no drivers.
> >>
> >> Your version of ALWAYS is in reality MAYBE.
> >
> >And so is your version of INTELLIGENCE. (another flame, great isn't
> >it!)
>
> Yes, it indicates how low you have to go to desperately try to prove your
> point. If you feel it is necessary to insult, you've lost already.
It's never necessary to insult anybody... But then again, it's a lot
of fun. Try it yourself sometime. Or maybe you're just too STUPID to
do it.
> >> If you mean Microsoft Office, the text moves around it. Your problem?
> >
> >Yeah, see what happens to the layout on the pages after it.
>
> I do this sort of thing all the time. Works for me.
Well, for me it doesn't. Everything shifts across pages and i have to
update the content page every time, after i got all the spaces out of
the start of every page.
> --
> Pete Goodwin
> ---
> Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
> My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
--
You have changed the signature included in your e-mail.
For these changes to take effect, you must restart your computer!
Do you wish to restart your computer now?
[YES] [NO]
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I'm curious
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 15:40:41 -0700
[snips]
"Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'll lose the thread. Yet, there are a number of people within these
> groups that claim to be highly in-demand, very knowledgable
> professionals in the computer industry and who post here at all hours.
No big mystery. Take me, for example; I frequently post during the workday,
although not usually to this newsgroup. How do I find time? Simple; the
usual case is, I'm doing a build. Local builds of the stuff I'm working on
take, on average, about 10 minutes or so, and I do several of them per day.
Testing also sometimes allows some time for posting; a number of the test
runs I do involve longish (5-15 minute) periods of letting the code do its
thing, before it needs to be poked at.
Between these, I typically end up with an hour or even more during the day
when I'm effectively[1] idle. Depending on my work load, I'll either work
on another project, review requirements or specifications documents, put
together training sessions, or, in the cases when there really is jack squat
else on my plate, go hit the newsgroups.
[1] Due to workload, not inability to do multiple things. :)
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:46:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:45:31 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>
>>>Only when dealing with people who are incapable of learning new terms
>>>that happen to have the same names as words already in their vocabulary.
>>>Anyone who wants to understand computers has to learn a lot of very
>>>specific specialized meanings for words that they already know, and they
>>>have to learn how to use those terms precisely.
>>
>>Now if only everyone who learned different specific specialized meanings
>>for the precise terms, we wouldn't have a problem.
>
>Would you mind rereading this and telling me what it's supposed to say?
Its supposed to say "Now if only everyone who had learned different
specific specialized meanings for the precise terms had learned the same
specific specialized meanings, we wouldn't have a problem." Sorry for
the brain-fart. But it wasn't really all that hard to figure out, if
you'll pardon me for saying so.
>>But just as easily
>>as "application" gets shredded and maimed between different specialties,
>>so does the term "task". You may think of yours has having special
>>merit, but those who study "human factors" such as ergonomic engineering
>>or interface design have a different, no less specialized, and no less
>>precise (though certainly less obscure), meaning.
>
>Great. You want to talk about human factors, learn their definitions.
>You want to talk about systems engineering, learn the definitions of the
>people who do systems engineering.
And what specifically do you propose I do when trying to talk about
human factors with system engineers, or about system engineering with
those who study human factors? Or merely talk to both at the same time
about something of common concern?
>If you can learn separate
>definitions for a term as an everyday term and as a human factors term,
>you should be able to learn it as a systems term too without getting the
>three definitions confused.
You seem to be forgetting that it isn't a problem with my getting
confused, but with the system engineers and people who are dealing with
other things called "tasks" which get confused. I'm quite capable of
understanding that any word has a near infinite variety of meanings,
depending on both context and style. Others have this hang up where
they feel like insisting that all words have exclusive, rather than
inclusive, definitions.
>Unless perhaps you're finding all of this a
>bit much? You can always start a new career teaching gym or something
>if all the difficult vocabulary is getting you down.
No, actually, I quite enjoy being challenged to use a universal
vocabulary accurately, consistently, and practically despite the fact
that many terms have multiple, distinct, and conflicting meanings. I'd
be happy to explain the frame work I use to reflect these efforts, but I
fear you'd find your blinders much more comfortable than your thinking
cap.
[...]
>You tell me of a scholar asking a question that led to acknowledgement
>of ambiguity in the nomenclature of systems engineering. I see you
>trying to point out such flaws all the time. The scholar is successful
>where you fail -- why?
Because he only has to satisfy his own specialized use of terminology,
and thus does not have a conflict?
>Because the scholar has no contempt for the
>system of thought that he criticizes. He understands that his criticism,
>far from discrediting the nomenclature, actually legitimizes it; if the
>system of thought weren't useful, he wouldn't be studying it, he
>assumes.
I haven't a clue what you think you're talking about, honestly. Perhaps
you're merely misinterpreting the last few exchanges in a longer
conversation. Why do you believe the fact that my pointing out that the
word "task" has different meanings within different, but no less
legitimate, specialties than system engineering is some sort of attempt
to discredit the nomenclature? Yes, a scholars use of a term
legitimizes it. But only within the field of his scholarly work;
language actually uses inclusive, not exclusive, definitions.
>But you haven't studied operating systems terminology. You have no
>reason to believe that the terminology is valid -- a bunch of folks on
>Usenet say so, but you don't know them from Adam, so why should you
>believe them? You want to criticize the concepts, but you're too
>impatient or something to learn how they fit together first. You really
>appear intellectually lazy to me.
I think you're grasping at straws, to be honest. Its not like this is
the first time you've tried to attack me for engaging in free inquiry
and discussion.
I'd say "thanks for your time" but I'd just as soon rather you shut up,
actually. I'd say "hope it helps", but I doubt its going to, and any
hope you might have that your rather thin tirade is going to quiet me in
response is entirely futile, I assure you.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:46:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >Traditional behavior is that if the execute bits are set, then
>> >the text remains resident in core.
>>
>> This seems related, but distinct, from the explanation I got, which was
>> that the sticky bit (with execute bits set) dealt with access
>> permissions. The easiest example to use would be "traceroute", or the
>> old "etherfind". These programs require root permissions to run. But
>> if you set the sticky bit with the owner of the file being root, then
>> anyone can execute them.
>
>That's the "Set User ID" bit.
>
>Runs the executable under the ID of whoever owns the file.
In the six years that I have been working with Unix workstations
regularly (if not routinely), I have on occasion heard people refer to
what I assumed was supposed to be the suid as "the sticky bit". How do
they differ?
I'd appreciate any help I can get clearing up my confusion.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:46:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >Traditional behavior is that if the execute bits are set, then
>> >the text remains resident in core.
>>
>> This seems related, but distinct, from the explanation I got, which was
>> that the sticky bit (with execute bits set) dealt with access
>> permissions. The easiest example to use would be "traceroute", or the
>> old "etherfind". These programs require root permissions to run. But
>> if you set the sticky bit with the owner of the file being root, then
>> anyone can execute them.
>
>Wow. That must be the most wrong paragraph about unix permissions, I
>have ever read.
Then perhaps you misread it?
>You are confusing the sticky bit with the suid bit, and are giving it
>aditional magic properties that are simply done with a "a+x" chmod.
Yes; the suid bit was indeed explained to me as the "sticky bit". Was
this incorrect information? Perhaps I just have the nomenclature mixed
up. Please explain.
>Go to the nearest unixy system, and do a man chmod, please!
Sorry, I've already done that at least seven dozen times in my career,
and didn't see anything then that caused me to recognize my error, so I
doubt I'd see it now, even if I were to spend the time reviewing a man
page for no practical purpose, which I'm afraid I'm not willing to do.
Perhaps you could be more specific about what you're referring to. Even
if the sticky bit is not the suid bit, it would still be modified with
chmod, wouldn't it?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:46:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" escribió:
[...]
>Those were not just the clergy's view. There is a very unfortunate
>tendency today to believe people in the past were morons. They
>were not! That was, simply, the state of the science at the time,
>just like newtonian physics was a couple of centuries later.
It might serve as a small glimpse into the muddled mind of T. Max if I
mentioned something that I think is really a fascinating idea. Its not
really an idea, AFAIK, but a fact, though it certainly isn't necessarily
easily accepted. Your point that people in historical time (such as
Galileo's, a few hundred years ago) were not morons is, I believe, quite
accurate. Not anymore, we must say, than they are today.
Consider what this would mean in terms of biological time scales,
though. Somewhere between 200,000 and 2 million years ago, Homo Sapiens
initiated "cultural evolution", including what millennia later would
become science, by developing true language and speech and eventually
writing, using the existing apparatus available to "him". A man from
prehistoric times was indeed the biological equal of modern man. Cave
men, those ones who drew those "crude pictures" on the wall? They were
every bit as *smart* as you or me. They just didn't have anyone who had
already figured anything out that could teach them. But they weren't
any less intelligent than we are.
It does seem very unsurprising that man's history has been rife with
injustice, oppression, and war, in that light; doesn't it? People in
120,000 B.C. were just as convinced they were right and even clear
thinking as JS/PL is. Most people, of course, aren't as blind to the
information already available to them as JS/PL, though we must all admit
his attitude is not uncommon amongst the general population. Mostly,
however, people do seek out information in order to find out if they're
wrong as well as right, and don't simply want to be considered right,
but want to be correct. Consider what such ancient people had to deal
with, though, when there was such precious little actual information
available to them. Even in Galileo's time, it might be decades or even
centuries before most common farmers were aware of these esoteric
workings of science.
Practically all "legitimate" UFO abduction scenarios is considered by
the skeptic institutions to be the result of the well-studied phenomenon
of "waking dreams". This same mechanism is believed to be responsible
for historical experiences of succubus and incubus and other ghouls and
demons. In light of things, what is to us a silly superstition is
actually a far more intelligent hypothesis, given the evidence available
to each, than what many people place faith in today.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:46:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> I'm defending my statement that Win9x is "poorly engineered".
>
>Keep going. I remain stunningly unconvinced.
You remain stunningly unconvinceable, and your theories remain
unfalsifiable, and thus worthless.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:46:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:52:31 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> > "void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >
>> > > There is no excuse for Win9x. It is poorly engineered, period.
>> >
>> > No, it's quite well engineered. You have to think about the design
>> > considerations and restrictions when making such a statement, not how
>well
>> > it might compare to a product which had an entirely *different* set of
>> > design restrictions and considerations.
>>
>> I don't really see how Windows benefitted from lacking a sane shared
>> library system for so long, for example.
>
>What is insane about DLLs (note, how they are designed, not used) ?
>
>And that really doesn't have anything to do with the original issue.
It is precisely the original issue, and what is wrong with their design
is the cause of how they are used. The pathetic pretensions of the
*potential* for a versioning system which Windows' itself neither
provides nor supports is mere hand waving.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
