Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #28 Thu, 17 Aug 00 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: It's official, Microsoft® porting applications to Linux ("Rich C")
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates) ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux ("Rich C")
Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's (Brian Langenberger)
Re: It's official, Microsoft® porting applications to Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Karel Jansens)
Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Josiah Fizer)
Re: Decent Linux CDR software wanted. (Tim Kelley)
Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you! (Tim Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's official, Microsoft® porting applications to Linux
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 14:15:50 -0400
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Milton wrote:
>
> In a desperate attempt, to regain some legitimacy in the high-tech
> software arena, Microsoft® is letting a an experienced 3rd party,
> Mainsoft, port it's applications to the state of the art operating
> system, Linux.
>
> The results, so far, have been disappointing.
>
> Brought to you by Windows 2000 Magazine
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2874
>
> :)
This sounds more like MS trying to find ways to make sure all of its
current security problems can be ported to Linux. Or a way of trying to
make Linux look bad in other ways. I just don't think MS is capable of
doing this in an attempt to look technically efficient. It is more than
likely to make Linux crash and burn. Or, as the article itself says, to
use poor and 'behind the times' apps on Linux to try and convince people
to move 'to Windows'. Of course, this is a little silly since a lot of
us moved FROM Windows to Linux.
Of course, I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time either.
I think it's more of an attempt to carry forward MS's bloated, proprietary
document formats to other operating systems, to hold those users hostage as
well.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 04:25:58 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8nh80n$q6c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ng5vn$6ft$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8ng5jh$uv4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8ne7hg$bk2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > Sheesh. First you use TWM, and now mc running in an *xterm* ?
> > >
> > > No, I never said I was using TWM.
> >
> > My bad, it was fvwm, was it not ?
> >
> > > > And you wonder why people accuse you of "cheating" ?
> > >
> > > If the finctionality is equivalent, where is the cheating?
> >
> > Because the functionality *isn't* the same - that's the point.
> >
> > > > Explorer can and has done that since IE4.
> > >
> > > Again, talking about the Windows Explorer (explorer.exe) NOT Internet
> > > Explorer.
> >
> > It is normal explorer, using the IE component from within it.
> >
> > Or would you prefer good ol' wheel-reinventing and have FTP implemented
in
> > explorer *and* internet explorer ?
>
> What version of Windows Explorer are you considering?
IIRC, you can do this once you've installed IE4 (and its "shell
integration") on whatever version of Windows you are running.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[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: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 13:12:56 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > One thing I am glad, they never got as bad as Voyager. Voyager should
> be
> > > subtitled "one series too many".
> >
> >
> > Voyager was good if you didn't think of it as a Star Trek spin-off.
>
> For me it lost a lot of its credibility in the first season. In the first
> episode it is stated that Voyager outclassed any ship in the delta
> quaderant. In terms of speed, fire power, and technology.
>
> In that first episode they first encountered a hostile alien race. Through
> out that first season they kept encountering that same race, not only the
> same race but the same individuals in that race and the same ships.
>
> Through out that season they kept talking about travling straight back home,
> but then given their superior speed they should not have been encountering
> the same ships and individuals unless they were flying in circles.
>
> In other seasons it is learned that the delta quaderant is the location of
> the home Borg and they are well know by the inhabitants there. Which
> invalidates the statement of their ship outclassing anything in the
> quaderant.
I've only seen a few episodes of the first season of Voyager, so I don't
know an incredible amount about it. But I did see a lot of the later
seasons, and I may have been so desperate for any sort of entertainment
at that time that it seemed good to me. Of course, the fact that I was
watching it at about 1:30am every night might have had something to do
with it too (and the addition of seven of nine sure didn't hurt none
;-).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:17:59 GMT
>>>>> "JS/PL" == JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Chris Wenham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> What Max is advocating is not communism.
> He's a communist at heart,
*yawn* Gosh that used to work in the 50s, all you had to do was wave
around a piece of paper with names on it.
> always has been. Every now and again he posts
> some drivel about how he's "pro capitalist" followed by some assinine
> statement that profits should be regulated or minimized to be ethical (or
> something similar to this foolish idea).
Such as?
> To Marx...err...Max any profit that is slightly above breaking even is
> unethical and reprehensible.
Of course it is, JS. In order to change the subject with character
assasination, all you need to do is start making stuff up :-)
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you!
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 13:17:52 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > You're happily married? God I feel sorry for your husband. He probably
> > comes home every night to a different personality and a different 'mood'
> > within that personality. Tell me something, how does he feel about your
> > multiple personalities and overall childish behavior?
>
> It is not just a marriage, it is an adventure!
I wonder if each personality considers the husband cheating if he is
with another of the personalities. On the positive side (for the
husband) he has a nearly endless supply of lovers, he just doesn't get
to choose which one he is with at any one time.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 14:24:30 -0400
http://freshmeat.net/appindex/1999/07/26/933004474.html
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8nh7ep$8ldcp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >Given the fact that it is not only MS's operating system that is unsecure
> >and unstable, I can't imagine anyone concerned with these issues picking
a
> >stable unix-like operating system and then using applications like word
> >(which crashes frequently when trying to print, for example) or Outlook
> >Express.
> >
>
>
> Personally the only part of office that I would ever need is MSAccess as
no
> linux packages so far can open the proprietry format used by this
> application (Staroffice and others can open word,excel,powerpoint files
but
> not access databases). Unfortunately I need to open access databases
> regularly at work as we use access for our software fault database (I work
> for a software company).
>
>
Take a look at:
http://freshmeat.net/appindex/1999/07/26/933004474.html
I don't know if it will help you out or not, or if you've already seen it.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[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: 17 Aug 2000 18:26:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> > One thing I am glad, they never got as bad as Voyager. Voyager should
: be
:> > subtitled "one series too many".
:>
:> Voyager was good if you didn't think of it as a Star Trek spin-off.
: For me it lost a lot of its credibility in the first season. In the first
: episode it is stated that Voyager outclassed any ship in the delta
: quaderant. In terms of speed, fire power, and technology.
: In that first episode they first encountered a hostile alien race. Through
: out that first season they kept encountering that same race, not only the
: same race but the same individuals in that race and the same ships.
In all fairness, The Next Generation had the same problem early on.
The crew would encounter either: a race of peons whose only
defense against ending the show in 10 minutes was some prime directive
wackiness, or some all-powerful godlike race who could squish the
Enterprise but had some other silly motive.
Later on, the show turned into a mix of ongoing political episodes
(Klingons, Romulans and Cardassians, oh my!) and anomoly-of-the-week
episodes. When TNG went off the air, DS9 got all the political
stuff and evolved into a pretty good show. But Voyager got
all the anomoly-of-the-week episodes and hasn't improved much
since.
At the risk of starting a science fiction flamewar, I'll assert
that Farscape on the Sci-Fi channel took a very similar premise
and, with the help of some snappy writing, made a much better
show. But that's just MHO.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: It's official, Microsoft® porting applications to Linux
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 13:42:22 -0500
"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> # The complicated undertaking...requires the companies to map native
> # Win32 API calls to the Linux equivalents so that Windows applications
> # will run normally in that environment.
>
> This is exactly what Wine is trying to do. If Microsoft is undertaking
> this effort in good faith, perhaps they could lend a few tips to the Wine
> people -- and without sneaky licensing terms such as they tried to pull
> with their version of Kerberos.
Actually, this has been done for other Unix already. Mainsoft's Wind/U is a
port of Win32 to Unix. They're just porting it to Linux now.
> The article further notes that
>
> # ...most Microsoft applications--especially those in the Office suite--
> # use a number of proprietary interfaces...
>
> Didn't Microsoft deny this in court?
I think you're confusing API with interface. I think the article is talking
about the user interface, which is very proprietary in Office, since Office
tends to be the first applications to do something (like flat toolbar
buttons), thus they have to code it themselves.
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 13:33:26 +0200
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Chris Wenham wrote:
>>>>>> "cbass2112" == cbass2112 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Wenham
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> GIMP is available for Windows. The trend may extend to
> >> more. After all, the source is freely available.
> >>
> >> Indeed, someone may even port "Everblue" to Windows.
>
> > (Strike GIMP and replace with more suitable example. Try not to
> > lose focus on point I was trying to make.)
>
> I do see the point. But I was also proposing a counterpoint: What if
> someone ports Everblue to Windows?
>
I thought Everblue needed an _operating system_ to run on?
So, if you mean by "Windows", Windows 95, 98 or ME, you really should have
asked: What if someone ports Everblue to DOS? Which would be, I guess, a Stupid
Question <TM>.
If, OTOH, you were talking about Windows 2000, the defining criterium is going
to be: How many mortgages are needed to purchase the hardware that will allow it
all to run?
Let's face it, for Everblue there can hardly be found a more suitable operating
system than OS/2. Well, maybe GEOS...
--
Karel Jansens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
========================================================
"I laugh in the face of danger.
I drop icecubes down the vest of fear."
(Edmund Blackadder III)
========================================================
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:08:15 -0500
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ng13p$l8p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Byrns) wrote in
> <_CLm5.4380$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> 8<SNIP>8
>
> >> How would an experiment with no business impact affect the price of
> >> stock?
> >
> >Don't worry, Aaron will threaten your life soon too. He does that with
> >everyone that proves him wrong. After all he *IS* RAMBO.
>
> Hey, back off Byrns! He's 'leet!
I feel that you might have omitted a smiley there somewhere :-)
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 13:33:58 -0500
"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ngngg$d3d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <STIm5.4248$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Explain your purported "lack of reentrancy" and "memory protection"
> > and how they affect the number of Windows NT servers required to
> > service a given number of clients. I just don't see the
> > correlation.
>
> I would imagine that the lack of reentrancy refers to poorly
> implemented libraries on the platform; I have heard stories
> (unconfirmed by myself) that the platform uses a lot of spinlocks
> instead of using something more reentrant (like context parameters
> which can be stored on the local stack.)
Spin locks are restricted to kernel mode device driver development on
multiprocessor machines. They are not used in user mode libraries.
http://www.microsoft.com/DDK/DDKdocs/Win2k/16issues_4qhz.htm
> The lack of memory protection almost certainly refers to the way that
> all servers are implemented (in C/C++, languages not known for their
> safety)
What language are the servers in linux implemented in?
> as multi-threaded servers, instead of multi-process servers.
> This is a direct consequence of the sheer cost of process creation on
> NT,
Forking is rather expensive on UNIX too but it's the historical choice
because most flavors didn't support threads until recently.
> and it results in servers where a crash of a service[*] that is
> handling a client causing the whole server (not the thread, but the
> process) to fall over because the individual services are not
> partitioned from each other.
The Win32 API provides robust memory management routines to effectively
"partition" memory between threads if that is the desired behaviour.
Prudent use of structure exception handling, thread critical sections, guard
pages, access validator functions and the explicit memory protection offered
by the VirtualProtect(Ex) function. For example, one of the first functions
in the ThreadProc would be to allocate some thread local storage to hold the
base address for it's private memory. It would then enter critical section
and VirtualAlloc the pages of private memory it needs including head and
tail guard pages. VirtualProtect is used to deny access to the memory and
indicate the guard pages and the critical section is left. Any time the
thread needs to access it's private memory it just enters a critical
section, uses VirtualProtect to allow access to it, reads or writes the
memory, uses VirtualProtect to deny access once again and then leaves the
critical section. All of these routines are highly optimized and add little
more overhead than standard interlocked access. Obviously these details
would be wrapped in accessor functions to make the coding simpler.
Stuctured exception handling is used in conjuntion with Windows access
validator functions to verify pointers and add that safety you were
concerned about. Memory access exceptions should be caught in the thread
manager so that an errant thread can be terminated if it's not caught
locally in the thread. The resulting effect is that any time a thread tries
to access the private memory of another thread an access violation occurs
and is caught either by the thread (possibly causing it to execute
diagnostic code, log the particulars and reset itself) or by the thread
manager (which will probably have to terminate the thread and add a new one
to take it's place in the pool).
In many cases programmers forgo implementing memory protection between
threads but that's not the fault of the OS. It's the fault of the
programmer. It's there if you want to take advantage of it.
> Unix servers tend to have more memory protection ('cos
> it is much cheaper to use processes, and they offer much more
> isolation) so the problem bites far less.
How much cheaper? Both OSs do essentially the same things when creating
processes. I'd be interested to learn just how many processor cycles it
takes each to create a simple "Hello, world." process. I'll wager that it
is cheaper to create a thread on Windows than it is to create a process on
UNIX. Since Windows threads CAN offer a similar degree of memory protection
it would seem the more efficient route.
> Given that you have a system that is less reentrant (forcing more
> spinlocks to avoid trouble) and less stable (due to reduced levels of
> memory protection) you reach the inescapable conclusion that you need
> more hardware to serve an equivalent load. That's just plain obvious.
> Most of these things are not required to be necessarily so on NT; they
> could be fixed. It just hasn't happened yet AFAIK...
I think your conclusion is based on flawed data. As I explained, spinlocks
are used only in the driver code, not in the service code nor in the core
DLLs and thread memory protection is there if want to use it. If anything
the lower overhead of protected threads vs. multiple processes should allow
the same hardware running Windows 2000 to serve a greater load with the same
degree of memory protection.
> (Another factor that makes NT less capable at serving heavy loads is
> the degree of OO technology used. The problem with OO (particularly
> where you have all your methods virtual, as is necessary with COM for
> good technical reasons) is that it has poorer code and data locality,
> which makes both disk- and RAM-caching less effective, degrading
> performance. Sure, OO has loads of advantages but locality of
> reference isn't one of them. Unix uses more procedural C, and that is
> easier for hardware to speed-boost.)
Having pages mapped from the disk cache to the paging file allows both to be
used more efficiently and can increase your cache effectiveness. Consider a
COM DLL that has been initialized and freed. It's VM image gets released
and under normal circumstances you'd have to reload the image from the disk
or cache. Windows just maps the disk cache pages as VM and accesses the
image right out of the disk cache -- no copy required. This easily offsets
any performance hit taken due to differences in locality associated with OO.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:44:24 GMT
>>>>> "Karel" == Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Chris Wenham wrote:
>>>>>>> "cbass2112" == cbass2112 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Wenham
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> GIMP is available for Windows. The trend may extend to
>> >> more. After all, the source is freely available.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed, someone may even port "Everblue" to Windows.
>>
>> > (Strike GIMP and replace with more suitable example. Try not to
>> > lose focus on point I was trying to make.)
>>
>> I do see the point. But I was also proposing a counterpoint: What if
>> someone ports Everblue to Windows?
>>
> I thought Everblue needed an _operating system_ to run on?
> So, if you mean by "Windows", Windows 95, 98 or ME, you really should have
> asked: What if someone ports Everblue to DOS? Which would be, I guess, a Stupid
> Question <TM>.
I must be missing something, or you are. I thought Everblue was the
effort to port the X window toolkit to OS/2's Presentation Manager to
make it easier to port X applications and run them seamlessly.
Someone could do the same with Windows - making it easier to port X
applications and run them without an X server.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:46:23 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Wenham wrote:
> >>>>> "Karel" == Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Chris Wenham wrote:
> >>>>>>> "cbass2112" == cbass2112 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Wenham
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> GIMP is available for Windows. The trend may extend to
> >> >> more. After all, the source is freely available.
> >> >>
> >> >> Indeed, someone may even port "Everblue" to Windows.
> >>
> >> > (Strike GIMP and replace with more suitable example. Try not to
> >> > lose focus on point I was trying to make.)
> >>
> >> I do see the point. But I was also proposing a counterpoint: What if
> >> someone ports Everblue to Windows?
> >>
>
> > I thought Everblue needed an _operating system_ to run on?
> > So, if you mean by "Windows", Windows 95, 98 or ME, you really should have
> > asked: What if someone ports Everblue to DOS? Which would be, I guess, a Stupid
> > Question <TM>.
>
> I must be missing something, or you are. I thought Everblue was the
> effort to port the X window toolkit to OS/2's Presentation Manager to
> make it easier to port X applications and run them seamlessly.
>
> Someone could do the same with Windows - making it easier to port X
> applications and run them without an X server.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Wenham
If thats all it is there are already several X Window (no s) sytems out for MSWindows.
I
use Excead and have had no problem porting X applications over to NT/98.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Decent Linux CDR software wanted.
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 13:51:12 -0500
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
> This may be the wrong group for this question but does anyone here know of a
> good linux CDR writing package similar to 'Win on CD'.
As far as making images goes, you can use mkisofs for that. You
don't have to copy the files to a single direcotry, you can just
link all the files and directories beneath one directory then
point mkisofs to that directory.
Other than that, cd writing is a little clunkier (depending on
what you're willing to put up with) in linux than in windows.
AFAIK, all gnome toaster and xcdroast, et. al. do is coordinate
between various other programs that are already there (mkisofs,
cdrecord, cddao, cdparanoia, etc.). I tried gnome-toaster as
well but it is a little on the beta side for me.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you!
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 13:54:32 -0500
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> You're happily married? God I feel sorry for your husband. He probably
> comes home every night to a different personality and a different 'mood'
> within that personality. Tell me something, how does he feel about your
> multiple personalities and overall childish behavior?
>
> Well, I suppose he never sees it. After all, you wouldn't want anyone
> you actually 'know' to see this side of you (or these sides of you).
Her husband is only one more of his personalities. Actually,
steve/claire/heather/keys88 is a guy, so we really have a
personality recursion loop where Steve is talking though claire
(his wife) about his husband (steve?).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
