Linux-Advocacy Digest #411, Volume #28 Mon, 14 Aug 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Courageous)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (D. Spider)
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Pat McCann)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (D. Spider)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates)
Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 21:08:48 -0400
Perry Pip wrote:
> >> develop these new technologies. You now seem to be agreeing with that.
> >>
> >
> >What new technologies? Private railroads had been running for some time.
>
> Civil engineering technology and infrastructure. Building bridges and
> tunnels across and thru the Rocky and Sierra mountains. The lessons
> learned from the original government subsidized railroads benefitted
> those who privately built railroads in the later, as well as the fact
> that the latter also benefitted from pre-existing infrastructure. So
> more like much after 1893.
>
There had been tunnels before then.
>
> >And yes, it would have taken longer for continental railroads to have been
> >built privately, but is this such a bad thing?
>
> It would have slowed the indusrtrial development of the U.S., possibly
> resulting in a weaker U.S. in WWI and WWII, and possibly even a less
> developed U.S today.
>
It would have resulted in a different industrial development, but the
resources that were used by the government could have been
directed elsewhere,
> >>
> >
> >Failure in the banking system caused by railroads defaulting on loans
> >that they could not repay because there was insufficient demand for
> >the use of railroads.
> >
>
> The U.S. banking systems failed a dozen or so times in the 19th
> Century. If they didn't fail for one thing they failed for another. As
> result of the panic of 1905 the Federal Reserve Bank was created as a
> central bank to try to create stability in the banking system. In
> 1929, however, the people running the Federal Reserve Bank, who could
> have provided cheap loans to the banks to prevent them from going
> under, sat back and did nothing out of the idealistic philosophy the
> Government shouldn't ever get involved. Funny though, in 71 years
> since we have not had a catastophic collapse of the banking system.
>
Of course, they also been artificially stimulating the economy during
the 1920's as well. Unless they could have done it forever, there
would have been a slowdown.
>
> Perry
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's
Date: 15 Aug 2000 01:11:45 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8na3qa$g8g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Please excuse the crossposting, but this involves the readers of all
>three newsgroups.
>
>How many others here have recieved spam via email with the appearence of
>being a follow up to threads in these newsgroups (COLA, COMA, and
>COMNA) from this domain?
I can't say that I have, but if it's incessant, you
might want to consider forging your E-mail address,
or creating a procmail script that will only allow
E-mail in that you specify (ie: friends, and family).
At least, that's what I did. :-) I have a forged
E-mail address in my headers, and if someone does
add my legit address to a mailing list of some sort,
/dev/null will get a little snack.
It's nice, because I can determine who the "friendlies"
are, and add their names to the guest list, and I don't
have to worry about getting E-mail from someone I don't
want to hear from.
>I run Linux, no bloody RedHat, Debian, Slackware, or Corel, just Linux.
>My servers have been up 226 days 9 hours 57 minutes
"N, C, C, one, seven, oh, one... no bloody A, B, C, or D."
A thick cuban cigar goes to the man who can name this quote!...
Anyone who ever like Star Trek: TNG in the slightest should
be able to get this one.
:-)
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
| | And that is what makes great computer graphics."
|_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 01:26:16 GMT
I got it as well.
If you post frequently enough, you will be harvested and it will get
worse and worse as they pass the lists of good addresses along to
other spammers.
God help you if the P.H.E.R.M.O.N.E. king get's your address. He posts
tens of thousands of messages a day to various groups and has been
doing so for years.
Munging your address is the only sure fire way. Just make sure you
don't make the same mistake I unwillingly did by using an address that
became a real one, for someone else :(
Good luck...
Claire...
And see, sometimes we do agree on things :)
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 17:38:04 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Please excuse the crossposting, but this involves the readers of all three
>newsgroups.
>
>How many others here have recieved spam via email with the appearence of
>being a follow up to threads in these newsgroups (COLA, COMA, and COMNA)
>from this domain?
>
>Registrant:
>Callmaster S.A. (CALLMASTER-DOM)
> 11445 Genova Road
> Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
> US
>
> Domain Name: CALLMASTER.COM
>
> Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
> Dodt, Don (DD11557) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Callmaster S.A.
> 11445 Genova Road
> Rancho Cucamonga , CA 91730
> 909-944-1988 (FAX) 310-388-1140
> Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
> DILORETO, DAVID (DD13531) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> EyeFX.net
> 1409 James Street
> Cedar Hill, TX 75104
> 972-291-3393 (FAX) 972-849-7688
>
> Record last updated on 28-Jun-2000.
> Record expires on 24-Feb-2001.
> Record created on 24-Feb-1999.
> Database last updated on 13-Aug-2000 22:03:44 EDT.
>
> Domain servers in listed order:
>
> NS1.Y2KNETCAFE.COM 196.40.15.38
> NS2.Y2KNETCAFE.COM 196.40.15.40
>
>
>So far to day I have recieved two such spams which I am including here
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: CallMaster Communications <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 3:02 PM
>Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
>
>
>> Save 75%-80% on all international calls.Come to http://www.callmaster.com
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:<8n9ngi$oc6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >
>> > Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > > But of course.. in fact, my parents still have an original.. i.e. they
>> > > bought it back in the 60s. Damn thing used to take about 1-1/2 hours
>> > > just to start it's thing when I was a kid.. god knows how long it
>takes
>> > > now. It's like the "lava" is going bad or something.
>> >
>> > You must be aware that magma when it becomes lava it starts to cool and
>> > harden eventualy becoming rock solid. ;-)
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: CallMaster Communications <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 3:02 PM
>Subject: Re: Reinventing Mexican food... why should anyone be so silly?!
>
>
>> Save 75%-80% on all international calls.Come to http://www.callmaster.com
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:<8n7ghp$31q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Yea, but in Brooklyn NY we got the best damm Pizza in the entire
>> > > world....Not of that Chicago crap deep "grease" dish crap either.
>> > >
>> > > I suggest Vinnie's on 86th St and 4th Ave in Bklyn. If you are in
>> > > Manhattan, then Ray's in the village is best.
>> > >
>> > > claire
>> > >
>> > > P.S. NOBODY on L.I eats Chowda......nasty stuff, especially the white
>> > > variety....
>> >
>> > Thanks for confirming your haunts and locale,
>Deadpenguin/Steve/Simon/etc.
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>-----
>I run Linux, no bloody RedHat, Debian, Slackware, or Corel, just Linux.
>My servers have been up 226 days 9 hours 57 minutes
>
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 01:27:26 GMT
> >"Professional" wrestling on TV is not 'real' wrestling. You have to
> >remember that they are there to entertain. As such, they are actors.
>
> Yes, I know it's not real. I just can't believe that some
> people find such a thing "entertaining".
Contemplate for a moment the fact that half of everyone
in the world has an IQ < 100, and it will be easier to
understand.
C//
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 21:25:58 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > >
> > >Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >> They're trying it in the US schools with this "invented spelling"
> > >> bullshit.
> > >>
> > >> And look at how stupid these kids are now that they are graduating.
> > >> ...or should I say...being shoved out the door, as a mass of
> > >> uneducated boobs.
> > >
> > >That sound just like the attempt to elevate gutter talk to the level of a
> > >language and calling it ebonics. They are now starting to teach it in
> > >schools as a foreign language in the place of traditional foreign
> language
> > >studies.
> >
> > I doubt you could pack more misrepresentative sentiments into a single
> > post without mentioning Microsoft.
>
> It is happening:
>
> http://www.cal.org/ebonics/
> http://members.tripod.com/~cdorsett/ebonics.htm
> http://www.stanford.edu/~rickford/
>
> > Does any of this supposition have rational support, or is all just
> > reports from the birch grove?
>
> I don't understand your reference to the birch grove.
Anybody who mentions the fact that the US's education is being
DELIBERATELY destroyed by the teaching establishment is *supposedly*
a member of the John Birch society, ( http://www.jbs.org/ ) an
organization which is ridiculed by leftists to such an extent that
I can only assume that it is out of utter fear.
Fear of what, I do not know...but quite obviously, the JB society is
the biggest of all boogey-men in the mind of socialists, communists,
statists, and other creeps.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 01:42:54 GMT
It appears that on Sat, 12 Aug 2000 17:12:10 -0700, Pan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Once again, you start out talking about something relatively
>interesting... whether or not communism is currently practised in russia
>( In my opinion, it has only ever been practised in name only ) and then
>descend into nothing more than a litany centered on you bashing someone.
>
>I'd be happy to take issue with your notion of what does and does not
>constitute communism. More to the point, why soviet russia was not
>communist in any true sense of the term, why communism ~= human slavery,
>and why americans, esp. those educated during the cold war, often have
>trouble grasping that point.
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
>> Communism is the opposite of Libertarianism.
>
>Depends on how one defines communism, I suppose. If one equates
>communism with totalitarianism, then perhaps you have a case. IMO,
>communism is a historical stage that has nothing to with totalitarian
>rule.
I think the most common use of the word "communism" is to refer to
marxist-leninist or marxist-maoist communism, both of which imply a
totalitarian system, == human slavery.
What do you mean by the term?
>FWIW, I see libertarianism as not much more than idealistic world view
>dreamed up by people who are reaping the fruits of a mixed economy but
>who don't like paying taxes and who have forgotten how much of their tax
>money has actually gone to creating an infrastructure that makes
>possible an environment of economic prosperity through social and
>political stablity.
There are many "libertarianisms," if you want a fine-grained analysis,
but all (even libertarian communism) hold in common an ethic that
holds coercion to be wrong. Any truly universal criticism of
libertarianism must therefore be an argument that coercion is right.
Do you intend to argue that, or are your criticisms aimed at only some
libertarians?
>If anything has been proved conclusively in our grand public experiment
>it is that neither corporations nor individuals can be relied upon to
>voluntarily pay for public goods such as roads and other public
>infrastructure, they cannot be relied upon to look out for the general
>welfare. There is a reason that without exception, every one of the
>strongest economies in the world has a welfare state.
First reference is to the "free rider problem" of economics. There are
some possible solutions to that, without legitimising coercion. Roads,
for instance, can and are in many cases supported by user fees,
eliminating that problem. The list of areas where there is no
undisputably workable solution to the free rider problem without
coercion are rather short - courts, police, and military, the classic
minarchist trio. Even in those areas, some formidable arguments have
been leveled that solutions exist without relying on coercion.
As to the strongest economies in the world having welfare states,
while this is true in some sense, it is only fair to add that it is
also true that all of the large economies of the world have welfare
states, for political reasons, and that there are counterexamples that
hint that there is no necessary link between these facts.
>personal attack snipped...
>personal attack snipped...
>personal attack snipped...
>personal attack snipped...
>personal attack snipped...
>personal attack snipped...
>personal attack snipped...
>personal attack snipped...
>personal attack snipped...
>personal attack snipped...
>
>> > each other, perhaps it's time for the 2 of you to consider switching to
>> > email or at least to alt.we.can't.keep.our disagreements.civil
>>
>> ABSOLUTELY NOT!
>
>Sure, why bother with civility?
>
>personal attack snipped...
>personal attack snipped...
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: 15 Aug 2000 01:49:26 GMT
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
: NT Server takes at least 10-20 minutes on a large system.
: NT Workstation takes 7-10.
In my experience it's usually 3 to 5 minutes for NTW4, SP6a. Still
way too long, especially if one has to do it several times a week, but
I've never seen it take 10 minutes. Of course, much depends on
hardware and network configuration, logon scripts, and so forth.
My Linux boxes take 2-3 minutes to boot, almost as long as NT, but
fortunately they never need to be rebooted unless there's a power
failure longer than the UPS can handle. :) Also, if for some reason I
needed them to boot more quickly, there are things I could do such as
building a custom kernel with only the required hardware support (less
time wasted probing for stuff that isn't there), reducing the number
of services that run at boot (many of them I only occasionally use),
using a metadata-journalling filesystem such as ReiserFS, and so
forth. NT doesn't suffer from the need for long fscks after power
outages, but in spite of this advantage, it invariably takes longer to
boot, at its best, than Linux does at its worst. And it frequently
needs to be rebooted in situations where Linux would not.
Joe
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.software.licensing
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 14 Aug 2000 18:50:50 -0700
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 04:44:34 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
[...]
> Yes, I know. I don't believe they are correct. Just because the
> copyright doesn't cover the functional aspects doesn't mean those
> functional aspects aren't cogent to the protection of the copyrighted
> work. Copyright doesn't protect text (source code) for any metaphysical
> reason; it is to allow commercial transactions by allowing control of
> commercial transactions. If the acceptability in the market for your
> work is derived from somebody else's intellectual property, then your
> work is derivative of theirs. It doesn't matter what that work is, or
> what label you put on it.
1) That might be your moral viewpoint and your definition of derivative,
but I doubt they have much to do with the law as practiced.
2) If you can't use "cogent" properly (in many tries), please don't use
it at all.
> >>I'm afraid not. The library, privately owned or not, is intellectual
> >>property of the author; if the library author did not give permission to
> >>prepare derivative works based on their software, then any linking,
> >>regardless of the mechanism, is not allowed. Since GPL provides that
How can anyone imply that some kind of property (eg, IP) is not the
property of it's owner. Do the words not mean what they usually do?
The author can be irrelevant. He might have been working for hire (when
the statute doesn't even consider him the author) or have sold the IP.
> >
> >This is incorrect. Copyright law allows you to run any program and to
> >use libraries for which you own a copy. You don't need to own the
> >intellectual property, you just need to own a copy. Just the copy.
>
> Unless its GPL, because otherwise you may well be constrained by the
> trade secret-style license you were forced to agree to in order to get
> "just the copy". You cannot run commercial software in ways which are
> not restricted by copyright law *or* licensing agreements.
That confuses me. You're saying "you just need to own a copy"-"unless
its [sic] GPL". So you're saying the GPL is a trade-secret-style
license? What does that mean?
And why use the word "commercial". It's true for non-commercial too, no?
> >If you own a copy you don't need any additional permission from the
> >copyright holder. You can make any copies or adaptations to those
> >works necessary to get the program to run. See section 117 of Title
> >17. It's available on the web and very hard to misinterpret. I
> >wonder how you'll manage it.
>
> I haven't. I just haven't been blinded by it, I guess. It isn't
> copyright law which prevents commercial software from being decompiled,
> no, and it isn't copyright law which prevents open software from being
> subverted into secret source. Its licensing.
Again with the "commercial"? And your subversion crack, while literally
true, implies something that isn't true. Any license contract that
states that the open software licensed may be used by anyone forever
prevents that open software from being subverted, as you put it. Most
do. A few licenses go further and prevent the use of that open code with
other people's closed code. That's a much different and insidious thing.
> >Commercial copyright holders avoid giving you those rights suggested
> >under section 117 by not letting you own a copy. There is no such
> >work around presented by the GPL. You can own copies of GPLd works.
The licensing issue is finally addressed. I agree, as long as you
accept that the ownership of 117 doesn't mean much beyond what it says.
They probably should have used "legally possess", but IANAL.
There is also a problem in that the GPL's language concerning copying
(as opposed to modification and distribution) might cause the licensing
of the copying right to be considered simple (ie, bare) which makes it
revocable so that you might not be able to legally obtain a copy later.
You would not necessarily be able to own (legally) a copy of GPLed work
if the GPL is considered to be a contract over all its rights, but I'm
not sure on all the ins and outs of unsigned contracts vs. click and
shrinkwrap contracts.
> >It is not consistent with all cogent legal decisions. You won't read
> >them to find out how decidely false your statement is. Apparently even
> >giving you urls pointing to them isn't enough. I have to come over to
> >your place and read them to you. I need to highlight the naughty bits.
Again with the inappropriate "cogent"? Sounds like you meant "relevant".
It seems that license contracts can create their own kind of law. That
brings up a whole issue that I'm not sure you all have discussed. There
are court cases in which state IP laws have been struck down because
they conflict with the Constitution's IP language and implementing
federal laws. Something to do with the "Supremacy Clause". The Supreme
Court Justices wrote about not letting the state law subvert the federal
law. I could see similar logic applying to contract law, but the sad
part is, that such applications tend to not be made if the courts don't
see a good reason to do it, and I doubt that they will - in fact they
have good commercial reasons not to and the opposite reasons they never
seem to consider.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 01:55:49 GMT
It appears that on 13 Aug 2000 09:56:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren
Petrich) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>1. Does Loren accept that Communism *IS* still alive (and thriving) in
>>Russia
>
> Mr. Kulkis has to report to bizarre conspiracy theories that defy
>belief, such as how the biggest retreat since Brest-Litovsk in WWI is
>some kind of fakery.
>
> I've made a similar sort of case for Linux and the open-source
>movement being parts of a Communist plot to destroy capitalist software by
>both underselling it and by creating an ideological framework for the
>collectivization of software. V.I. Lenin had allegedly claimed that the
>capitalists would sell the rope that the Communists would use to hang
>them, and offering software for free is a variant of that strategy.
*ROFL*
Free Software was the brainchild of Richard Stallman, a very sincere
left-libertarian, and is supported and developed by a group of people
containing a much higher percentage of libertarians than the general
public. It's goal is to produce software which is not encumbered by
restrictive licenses that interfere with the users essential
Liberties.
Open Source is a modification of Free Software, aiming to make it more
business friendly.
You are either a troll or you don't have a clue what you are talking
about.
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:19:54 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8na24m$akh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8n98oj$h71$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >How is that cheating?
>
> FVWM is a small-sized wm, which doesn't nearly have
> the amount of functionality that EXPLORER.EXE has.
>
> Hence, your RAM comparison is very biased. :-)
What is FVWM missing that explorer.exe provides for a working environment?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:53:32 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8na5ch$akh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8na3qa$g8g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I can't say that I have, but if it's incessant, you
> might want to consider forging your E-mail address,
> or creating a procmail script that will only allow
> E-mail in that you specify (ie: friends, and family).
To day was the first time I recieved those messages, so far it was just two
of them. In general I don't mind spam, I just delete it. My mail is
download in the background so except for consuming a little bandwidth and a
little time to delete the message, it does not effect me too much.
On the other hand I don't like spam that arrive dishonetly like these did or
those that could be a fraud.
Like the first spammer that I shutdown who was masquerading as the a Nevada
casino.
> >I run Linux, no bloody RedHat, Debian, Slackware, or Corel, just Linux.
> >My servers have been up 226 days 9 hours 57 minutes
>
> "N, C, C, one, seven, oh, one... no bloody A, B, C, or D."
>
> A thick cuban cigar goes to the man who can name this quote!...
>
> Anyone who ever like Star Trek: TNG in the slightest should
> be able to get this one.
That is where I got the idea for the line in my sig.
In the episode where Scotty was rescued By the Enterprise D from the Dyson
sphere and then he return the complement.
Scotty was feeling nostalgic for the old days so he had the computer
recreate the Bridge of the Enterprise on the holodeck. The computer
request, which enterprise he wanted stating how many startships named
Enterprise there had been. Good old Scotty got his dander up as said that
line.
Catch the two major YATIs in that episode in reguards with the Trek
timeline? Hint, They both were errors in relations to two other Trek
productions.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
