Linux-Advocacy Digest #335, Volume #29 Wed, 27 Sep 00 16:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why I hate Windows...
Re: Why I hate Windows...
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Mike Byrns)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Mike Byrns)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: The Linux Experience
Re: High level design "chief" seeks "indians" ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: The Linux Experience ("Yannick")
Re: programming languages and design (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The Linux Experience (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: The Linux Experience (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 18:11:21 -0000
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:20:52 -0500, James Stutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Osugi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8qp2gf$6qu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8qj4rv$ric$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Actually, the better approach is to not use a home operating system
>> (Win98)
>> > in
>> > a corporate environment. NT was designed for this. While not
>> perfect, it
>> > is
>> > far more stable than Win98.
>> >
>> > JCS
>> >
>>
>> Why should a "home" operating system be inherently unstable? Less
>
>In this case, "home" is equivalent to "cheap". Commercial operating systems
>are expensive.
No they aren't.
The engineering cost of software can be amortized over
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of users. That argument simply has
no merit given the economies of scale involved with any
software.
>
>> powerful and less feature rich would be understandable (home users
>
>In some ways, Win98 is more feature rich. Provided your primary interest
>involves games.
Than what?
Only in a few boundary situations would Win98 be more 'feature rich'
even from a gaming standpoint than all of the other alternatives.
Quite simply, game companies need to exploit the same economies of
scale as any other software vendor. So being "too bleeding edge" isn't
really economically feasable for many developers.
So, many games aren't.
>
>> don't usually need 2 gig of ram or support for 16 processors), but
>> stability should be a given. Unfortunately MS seems to have convinced
>> many people that stability is a feature that you have to pay extra for.
>>
>> BTW, isn't the typical home computer expected to work harder than a
>> business workstation? Games, scanners, digital cameras, printers, all
>
>A "business workstation" isn't primarily used for desktop apps. That would
>be
>a "PC". My Win2k "business workstation" has been used for everything from
>Monte Carlo simulations to CAD. Game graphics, while pretty, don't involve
>geometries
>with all that much complexity. The components available for the workstation
>line of a
>company like Dell are far more capable and expensive then their home line.
>Unless you
>really want to try to use an Oxygen GVX1 card for a game. Kind of a waste
>for a $1k
>graphics card...
Actually, you've not seen Quake III until you've seen it on an Oxygen.
[deletia]
That and the gap between 'pro' card and 'gamer' card has been
narrowing for quite some time now.
--
May you die in bed at 95, shot by a jealous spouse.
Must I hold a candle to my shames?
-- William Shakespeare, "The Merchant of Venice"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 18:15:37 -0000
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:20:52 -0500, James Stutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Osugi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8qp2gf$6qu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8qj4rv$ric$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>A "business workstation" isn't primarily used for desktop apps. That would
>be
>a "PC". My Win2k "business workstation" has been used for everything from
>Monte Carlo simulations to CAD. Game graphics, while pretty, don't involve
>geometries
>with all that much complexity. The components available for the workstation
>line of a
>company like Dell are far more capable and expensive then their home line.
>Unless you
>really want to try to use an Oxygen GVX1 card for a game. Kind of a waste
>for a $1k
>graphics card...
BTW, that Oxygen is a $700 card actually.
...and gamer cards go in the $300+ range.
--
The only rose without thorns is friendship.
The better part of valor is discretion.
-- William Shakespeare, "Henry IV"
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 13:27:15 -0500
"Joe R." wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Joe R." wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > ostracus wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <39d1144c$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > "Bob Germer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > >> There are Mac databases.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which are toys compared to DB/2.
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > Toys? Hmmm...
> > > > > http://www.oracle.com/oramag/oracle/99-Nov/69prod.html#AP
> > > >
> > > > Haha. Client libs. Where's the 8i server software for OSX? How
> > > > sad.
> > > > BTW
> > >
> > > Since when was Mac OS supposed to be a high end server solution?
> > >
> > > Macs are desktop PCs. They are certainly suitable for many low-end
> > > server applications, but Apple has never pretended that they're heavy
> > > iron for things like Oracle.
> >
> > Like Bob said. Not real computers by his definition. Remember he's IBM
> > big iron.
>
> No problem for me.
>
> But the fact that he's considering that to be a problem with the Mac
> just shows that he doesn't understand where the Mac is targeted.
Where will it be targeted when OS X ships? I bet right where it can't
be targeted now due to it's current lack of modern OS features.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 13:29:15 -0500
dc wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:33:23 -0500, Mike Byrns
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >dc wrote:
> >
> >> >> Please describe how they'd get your config but not your files. Assume
> >> >> NT4-WS.
>
> Note: I think this assumes files already exist...
>
> >> >Permissions set so that writing can be done only in temp and your
> >> >network home. This is otherwise known as a locked down business or lab
> >> >config. See
> >> >http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q198/7/71.asp
> >>
> >> I see how to disable logouts, how to disable saving anything, but I
> >> don't see how to avoid the copying of files in a profile if they're
> >> already existing, assuming a roaming profile.
> >
> >Delete the files in your profile and tell windows to store them
> >elsewhere -- maybe in the network share.
>
> Agreed. But if they're already there, that won't help.
>
> Look, I agree this is a silly problem at best, but the issue -was- how
> to avoid all of those files being copied & taking up space....
Reduce the number of files stored in the roaming profile. It's easy
really. Set the profile to store My Documents and such in the home
share and then move any existing stuff there.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 18:18:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You seen the various news bits coming out about the eComStation client
> from Serenity Systems?
Yep; I still haven't decided whether to go with that or with the
convenience pack. But that's already; I also haven't decided whether to
play with RH 6.2, get the 7.0 CD-ROMs or wait for 7.1 to pick up the 2.4
kernel and KDE2.
--
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
"A BIND is a terrible thing to waste"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 18:47:00 -0000
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 17:48:56 GMT, Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:00092709172004.16019@pc03...
>> El mar, 26 sep 2000, James Stutts escribió:
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:48:38 -0500, James Stutts
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >
>> >> ><snip>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Installed the way an OS should be installed: BURNED INTO ROM.
>> >> >
>> >> >Kind of removes choice from the OS equation, doesn't it?
>> >>
>> >> There are several OSes available for Atari's actually.
>> >
>> >Changing ROMs is a non-trivial task for the average user.
>>
>> Not to mention making multi-boot difficult. LILO would be a screwdriver
>brand
>> ;-)
>>
>Not really, all you need is a switch to muti-boot with a ROM. I had a C64
>with Jiffydos and normal ROMs. I know you could get swichable ROMs on an
>Amiga also.
For the Atari, all you should need do is to put LILO on the MBR.
--
Death wish, n.:
The only wish that always comes true, whether or not one wishes it to.
statistics, n.:
A system for expressing your political prejudices in convincing
scientific guise.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 18:49:10 -0000
On 27 Sep 2000 14:40:54 -0300, Roberto Selbach Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[deletia]
> Keith> But, provided you are not new to linux, the documentation
> Keith> is copious, just disjointed.
>
>Please, don't get me wrong. I know Linux docs are difficult to be
>assimilated by newbies, especially those who expect everything to be
>as simple as turning a TV on. But I think that once you get started,
That's the problem.
Things that one can do or manipulate with a computer can be
remarkably more involved than turning a TV on.
>there is _much_ more good information on Linux than Windows. But that
>is *my* opinion, nothing more.
[deletia]
--
You are confused; but this is your normal state.
Max told his friend that he'd just as soon not go hiking in the hills.
Said he, "I'm an anti-climb Max."
[So is that punchline.]
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: High level design "chief" seeks "indians"
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 20:15:19 +0100
>Linus wrote the code because he just wanted something better than
>MS-DOS that he could fix if it broke. He also figured that UNIX
>compatibility would give him access to more applications.
>
The version of the story I have seen is that linus was using minix at
university
and though it was not really good enough so created linux as a compatible
replacement, so if this is true then the creation of linux had nothing to do
with
MSDOS, and that he based it on unix because it was an improved clone of
minix because that was what he happened to be using at university (this
seems
logical otherwise he may have made a dos clone as this may have had more
applications than 386 unix at that time without porting apps from non-intel
unix ?).
I would be interested in knowing whether this version of the story or your
version
is the correct one, has anyone here heard or read any direct quotes from
linus on this?
>sleeping, or just work because you got inspired. Ever notice
>how the really great ideas pop up at 3:00 A.M. - Linux leaves
>you with working code in the morning.
>
True - NT would leave you with a blue screen and no easy way to
remember your great idea in the morning.
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:24:42 GMT
Roberto Selbach Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>> "Yannick" == Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Yannick> Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le
> Yannick> message : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:23:19 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> wrote: I don't think the documentation is "bad". On the
> >> contrary, it is excellent ( especially if you compare it to
> >> 'doze, which has docs that border on completely useless )
> >>
> >> The problem is that it's not terribly well organised.
>
> Yannick> A nice euphemism :-)
>
> Indeed :)
>
> However, talking about documentation, Linux docs have one *really* big
> advantage over Windows docs: they are written by people who actually
> _know_ what they are about. And that is a big plus.
>
> Most documentation is written by people who don't really know much
> about computers, they are writers! Linux docs (HOWTOs and guides) are
> _usually_ written by experts in the area. I think that's very good.
On the end-user side, I do not know (I don't read end-user docs often on
Windows because usually you can figure out quite easily since it's all
GUI-oriented).
On the developer side, however, (MSDN Library) much of the documentation
I've seen is written by people who obviously know that they are about,
because the contrary would not be possible (you would not end up with
something understandable if the writer didn't know his subject perfectly.)
There is the other limit to be careful about. Experts might have difficulty
sometimes to get down from their tower of knowledge and explain in a simple,
pedagogic way. (I don't say it's intentional, but some people may have
difficulties writing good documentation on a subject they are experts on.).
Yannick.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: programming languages and design
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:29:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roberto Selbach Teixeira
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 27 Sep 2000 10:59:14 -0300
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>>>> "Donal" == Donal K Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Donal> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard
> Donal> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I'll take a run-time error in Smalltalk over a compile time
> >> error in C++ any day. After programming C++, debuging Smalltalk
> >> is pleasant.
>
> Donal> Uninformative statement; after programming C++ a root canal
> Donal> is pleasant.
>
>Why is it? C++ is a very well designed language. Unfortunately, some
>compilers make a *very* bad implementation. Even worse, those
>compilers are popular.
Flaws in C++, IMO:
[1] Almost every C program compiles in C++. This means that
Obfuscated C contests can still be held, even with C++
compilers. (Not clear if the C preprocessor is a feature,
a giant bug, or merely a coil of rope just waiting to tangle
up near someone's foot :-) ).
[2] Pointers -- more rope to trip over. (Rope can also be used
to tie recalcitrant programs together, though, so it's a
flaw *and* a feature.)
[3] The C library, with such goodies as printf ("%s", 1234)
or printf ("%d", "The rain in Spain falls here").
(I think Gnu C++ will warn on both, though.)
Also, the ever-dangerous gets() is still around (the GNU linker
does issue a warning, though).
[4] No built-in array bounds checking. None. Nada. Zip. If you want it,
you can use STL vectors, with additional overhead -- and even
then, some implementations may not bother. Or you can roll
your own. (Libraries such as Electric Fence and tools such
as Rational Software's Purify may help in finding trouble spots,
but they aren't quite as easy to use as Java's built-in checking.)
[5] Multiple vtbl pointers, because of multiple inheritance.
Java is slightly cleaner in that respect, and languages such
as Smalltalk probably use a single pointer to a table in their
message dispatcher, at the head of each class -- their equivalent
of a C++ vtbl. (I don't know Smalltalk beyond a very general usage
model, though.)
[6] cin >> char *, which is just as bad as gets(), and for the
exact same reason! (I'd personally recommend using cin >> string&,
if one's using STL.)
[7] There is apparently some confusion in implementations of STL;
some require 'std::' to be prefixed to each and every STL
class (e.g., std::vector, std::map). Some do not.
[8] Exception handling is spotty, especially with signals
(SIGSEGV, SIGILL, SIGINT) thrown in. I can see this confusing
a number of people.
[9] Stdarg/varargs invite trouble, but can also be very useful.
[10] The routine __pure_virtual_called simply exits, with a return code.
If I'm lucky, the return code will return failure...
(This routine is called if a class is incompletely constructed
(or has been destroyed!), and a subsequent caller attempts to call
a virtual function which has no definition, e.g.,
'virtual void doIt() = 0'.)
Java throws an exception, and my understanding is that Smalltalk
will hand the message to some sort of 'unknown message' handler,
even if the message is destined for some other class hierarchy!
Mind you, one can go overboard on this...but it does make
code evolution a bit easier.
[11] Subtle issues regarding malloc/new, threading, and signals that
occasionally bite program developers. For example, malloc() cannot
be used within a signal handler (a holdover from C), and
C++ doesn't thread well, athough with work it's not too broken.
It's like walking on a tightrope without a net ... be very
very careful, especially if one thread needs another's structures.
[12] Multiple inheritance is problematic. Consider a class C which
inherits from A and B; if a header or source file fails to declare C
properly, one might get a missoffset pointer! (Fortunately,
this isn't a common problem. At least, I don't think it is...)
Also, the "diamond diagram" problem, which might surface during
code evolution if A and B inherit from a common baseclass D.
C now has two D's, vtbl pointers and all. Yuck.
[13] It is unclear how well C++ supports wide characters (such as
Unicode) in literals. (One of the strengths of Windows
is its Unicode handling.)
[14] Constructors MUST declare initializer lists (the bit after the ':')
if they want their fields initialized! Otherwise, one gets
garbage, even from those classes which have a default constructor.
(At least, in some implementations; I haven't checked g++ lately.)
[15] Very little introspection is available in C++; one can probably get
the type name of a pointer to a class and do such things as
dynamic casting, but that's about it.
[16] If one wants to add a non-virtual method to a class, one must have
write access to the declaration of that class (i.e., the bit with
the 'class Foo { ... }' in it.) Java also has this problem.
Smalltalk, as I understand it, does not.
Note that adding virtual methods, or data members, to a class,
is a different thing entirely. I don't know if Smalltalk
supports the notion of adding members to a class from
outside its equivalent of a class declaration; in theory,
it could if it understands the notion of a default value,
so that already-created objects do the right thing in new code
referencing the new members. (I simply don't know; I suspect
that it does.) Java basically is all virtuals (although
it might do some optimizations, and methods declared final
might incur some checking and the wrath of either the compiler
or the runtime environment, under certain conditions).
[17] C++ doesn't have garbage collection. Granted, this is a
minor issue in most programs, but daemons that run 24/7
have to be very careful, lest they "leak". (Side note:
AmigaOS, at least as of 1.3 or so, did not have the
ability to clean up memory allocated with AllocMem(),
should a process die precipitiously. The C library worked
around this by maintaining a chain of allocated memory
blocks internally, and freeing it should a process exit.
It worked most of the time....)
Granted, some of these flaws may simply be the old performance/safety
tradeoff; in particular, introspection would probably require a lot
of extra overhead for proper support, and exception handling/signal
handling may be because of C and Unix compatibility issues.
Array limits would be very troublesome to implement in a clean way,
and dynamic adding of methods to a class implies that all methods
go through some sort of dynamic dispatcher
But C++ sure isn't perfect. (It's pretty good if one knows what one
is doing, but then, so is a blowtorch around a car's gas tank. :-) ) [*]
>
>However, I still believe C++ is a wonderful language for software
>development.
It works reasonably well. Java might be faster to prototype, though,
because one doesn't have to worry quite as much about the sillinesses
in C++ that get in the way of getting the idea working. (Of course,
in Java, one might spend more time looking up something in the API
than simply coding the routine, too -- it's very rich; there's also
the issue that Java loves to consume memory.)
>
>--
> Roberto Selbach Teixeira
> Curitiba, Brazil
[*] My understanding is that such is occasionally employed to fix leaks.
The tank, of course, has to be properly drained, first, if I'm
not totally mistaken, then cleaned of all flammable residue
(and any other residue, if one wants the stuff to stick; it's
probably not unlike the soldier flux used on circuit boards,
only heavier).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: 27 Sep 2000 19:32:12 GMT
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 17:20:34 GMT, Keith Peterson wrote:
>Well, that would be good if those people would deign to talk to the level of
>newbies. I would never, ever, ever refer a newbie to the man pages, for
I might. It depends on what they are looking for. man pages are reference
documentation, not tutorial material. The info docs are more suitable
for this. OFten, people complain about how cryptic the tar man page is.
But that's because tar is a complicated command. A better place for a
newbie would be the info documentation for tar which cuts to the chase
and offers a tutorial.
>instance, and many of the HOWTO's assume so many layers of knowledge that they
>are fundamentally useless for a new user.
The HOWTOs vary greatly in quality. I don't think very much can be done about
this. ( Except volunteers writing better HOWTOs )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:32:32 -0400
"Joe R." wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark Hall
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > How anyone can believe a Texas oil man (a bad Texas oil man at that) has
> > any benevolent feelings towards any class < than the upper crust is
> > either a complete idiot, lives on planet X, or is just blowing wind out
> > his ass.
>
> That may be. But consider the Clinton administration's record of
> "caring" about those less well off than them.
>
> Hillary Clinton goes into a restaurant for the first time on her own and
> doesn't tip a waitress.
>
> Travel office employees fired lock, stock, and barrel for having
> different political views.
Not to mention railroaded.
Actually, they didn't even have differing political views...just
occupying spots where Hillary wanted "[her] people" ... i.e.
the Dees-Thomases...probably some kickback scheme, seeing how
obsessed this woman is with obtaining money through illegal methods.
>
> Sexual abuse of interns.
>
> Using the IRS as an attack dog against those you don't agree with.
>
> Hardly what I'd call "caring for the poor".
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "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"
I: 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
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:33:55 -0400
Mark Hall wrote:
>
> James Stutts wrote:
> >
> > "Mark Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > How anyone can believe a Texas oil man (a bad Texas oil man at that) has
> >
> > So one should trust a Tennessee oil man? One who never was a member of
> > the working class?
>
> I don't advocate trust of either candidate. For the working class it
> always comes down to the lesser of the two evils. Using your argument, I
> would hardly characterize Mr. Bush as a member of the working class
> either. I think Ann Richard's said it best when she likened him to
> "being born with a silver spoon in his mouth".
That was his Father, you moron
Oh...by the way...did you notice that the next election after that
crack....Scary Ann LOST big time to the target's son...
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "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"
I: 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
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: 27 Sep 2000 19:36:40 GMT
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:24:42 GMT, Yannick wrote:
>There is the other limit to be careful about. Experts might have difficulty
>sometimes to get down from their tower of knowledge and explain in a simple,
>pedagogic way. (I don't say it's intentional, but some people may have
>difficulties writing good documentation on a subject they are experts on.).
It's a popular myth that experts cannot write good documentation because they
"know too much". I don't believe this to be the case. IMO what tends to
happen is that someone writes documentation that is too advanced for a
user, and the user assumes that (a) the author is an "expert", and (b) that
the documentation is written badly. It's possible that neither is true.
( for example, the definitive guides written by Stroustrup and K&R are very
nicely written, and great for intermediate programmers, but not ideal for
a newbie. )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
