Linux-Advocacy Digest #512, Volume #29 Sun, 8 Oct 00 00:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? ("Drestin Black")
Re: The Power of the Future! (Jim Richardson)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (.)
Re: RAID on Win2k Pro (.)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (.)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (.)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (.)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (.)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 8 Oct 2000 02:42:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> I don't think it's that hard to understand classes. In fact I think it's
>> harder to understand classes-as-objects.
>Only if you're already used to something /else/.
>And it doesn't matter if it's "hard" to understand classes, the point
>is that one must make an *additional* effort to understand them and
>that the burden on the language student and the programmer is already
>too damned high.
Nonsense. That classes are objects doesn't mean one doesn't
have to learn the concept of classes as classes. Later at
some point the elegance and power of treating classes as
objects can be useful, but saying that classes-as-objects
is easier to grasp at first is simply a biased statement.
>In an environment like Smalltalk (ie, image-based integrated devolopment)
>if classes weren't objects then they couldn't even be found in the system.
>You'd have to fake it, which means that the illusion would break some of
>the time. This "some of the time" includes ALL of the time for programmers
>who manipulate classes directly. So, for example, the people working on
>the Refactoring Browser would have one more thing to worry about *on top*
>of tying everything they do into the debugger and implementing all the
>possible refactorings and porting to different dialects of Smalltalk.
>Why the fuck would you want to make the system *ANY* more complex than
>it absolutely has to be?
In other words, if a Smalltalk system didn't have classes
as objects, then it wouldn't be so easy to use. What does
that tell us about the concept of classes-as-objects?
Absolutely nothing.
I'd have to agree though, that having classes as objects
is a powerful concept. It's of course not "easy" as Richard
claims. I can't say it's harder, since it really has much
to do with the programmer's background, but even in
languages where classes are objects, they aren't that often
used as such, except in limited and controlled capacity.
>Well, anyways; almost everyone on the Smalltalk side believes that
>Everything's An Object is the essence of OO. Go to comp.lang.smalltalk
>and you can ask them. Few, if any, people actually come out and say
>"the essence of OO is ..." but when you see statements about how C++
>is not OO and that everything's an object in Smalltalk (which is a
>simplification) then you put two and two together. Of course, you tend
>to do this at a subconscious level which is why when someone claims that
>C++ is OO, the only thing you know is that he is an ignorant asshole.
Of course that's a simplified view of OO. A reasonable
interpretation can be made that in Scheme, everything
(well everything other than special primitives and
macros, which are really syntax rules) is an object. No
knowledgeable person would claim that it is OO however.
>> >> If you want to do systems programming, you'll have a hard time doing it
>> >> in scheme, ML, Lisp and smalltalk.
>> >And this is because ?
>> Mostly speed concerns.
>Speed is the compiler's job. Smalltalk can be HEAVILY optimized.
Not always. A language often determines the extent to
which optimization is possible. From what I know about
Smalltalk, code written in it is hard to optimize.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: 7 Oct 2000 21:58:07 -0500
"Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Now it's your turn. What do you use your desktop for, and why does
> you OS do the job better than the alternatives?
>
Actually, I use my Windows 2000 desktop for... everything. unlike other
OSes, there has never EVER been not even one single time that I've ever
thought: "Gee, I wish I had an app like 'xyz' on 'os uvw'".
Why best is this context? See above. It's nice having access to ALL the toys
and never having to envy the other guys apps.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:47:09 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 10:51:27 -0500,
Tom Elam, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 15:03:43 GMT, Tom Elam wrote this reply to Charlie Ebert
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>But that growth spirt in the teenage years is a REAL KILLER!
> ^^^^^
>
>Why can't your mighty, all-powerul, Linsux box even run a spell-checker?
>
>HUH?
>
It's allways amusing to see a spelling flame with a spelling error...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 22:56:32 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> You've again missed the point. I don't care.
Your typical response to being proven a liar.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 8 Oct 2000 03:25:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Drestin Black wrote:
>> >
>> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:8rfm9h$r59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > news:8rd6gr$26rc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >> > I'm sorry dude, but sometimes you hear something so silly you
> can't
>> > stop
>> > > >> > from laughing...
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > I'm sure he'll post the tux results ... it's all they've got...
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Dont you have something better to do?
>> > >
>> > > > Yup - it's what I do the rest of the time... right now I'm laughing
> at
>> > the
>> > > > sun rep who tried to sell some 10000s to one of my clients...
>> > >
>> > > Oh I remember you, youre the one that thinks (incorrectly) that
> microsoft
>> > > can compete in the heavy-server market. We've all been laughing at
> you
>> > > for some time.
>> >
>> > One name: "w2k data center"
>>
>>
>> Yeah, now show us one that actually works.
>>
> start here butthead
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/datacenter/studies/default.asp
Strange that you had nothing to say about my utter debunking of your little
"compaq" solution.
=====.
--
"It's natural to expect there might be people doing stupid things
with computers"
---Michael Vatis, director of the FBI's national infrastructure
protection center commenting on Y2K concerns about hacker attacks
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 8 Oct 2000 03:29:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rle1r$ko2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 17:41:18 +1300, Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> >> >Hi all,
>> >> >
>> >> >I've just set up two dual-processor Redhat GNU/Linux 7 computers both
>> >> >booting with RAID1 for high reliability. I am also making use of the
>> > newly
>> >> >GPLed MySQL on both computers.
>> >> >
>> >> >One computer provides NAT and IPChains firewalling services. Both also
>> >> >provide an Apache/PHP development environment.
>> >> >
>> >> >To set this all up has cost $0 for the software. Knowing that
> Microsoft
>> >> >provides a lower total cost of ownership ;-) I'd be interested to know
>> > what it
>> >> >would cost to move these computers to a full Microsoft solution.
>> >> >
>> >> >It appears I would need this software:
>> >> >
>> >> >1) 2xNT4 or Window 2000 Server licenses to provide RAID1 on both
>> > computers.
>> >> >2) 4xCPU licences for MS-SQL.
>> >> >3) 1xMS Proxy Server(?)
>> >> >4) 1xOffice 2000 Premium for Mail client, Frontpage, etc.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Don't forget to include biyearly complete replacement of all your
> software
>> >> frequently necessitated to use MS's latest'n'greatest operating system.
>> > Nobody
>> >> would seriously consider using win31, win9x or even winNT software with
>> > W2K
>> >> production environment.
>> >>
>>
>> > Not win3x or win9x for servers, duh. But NT/W2K for production? I can't
> even
>> > find the strength to type out my laughter and your pathetic stupidity
> and
>> > ignorance of the 10s of thousands who are doing just that very
> successfully
>> > and less expensively than oracle or ibm solutions.
>>
>> 9 million dollars for the compaq solution. 3 million dollars for the
> equivalent
>> IBM solution, and that comes with an engineer who will relocate to your
> city and
>> work for you for a year.
>>
> #1) where the fuck do these figures come from?
The compaq figures are from the url that you provided. They were very clear,
all in black and white on a pretty pdf.
> #2) you provide nothing to explain the IBM figure so ignoring that vaporware
You have to get a quote from a rep for that kind of thing. I.e. you have to
have a reason to want to run something more capable than windows. :)
Go ahead. Call and get a quote.
> #3) what makes you think compaq hasn't done the same? or unisys?
They havent.
> #4) we understand that IBM systems NEED vendor support on-site to get up,
> running and stay running... how sweet...
Actually you dont, if you have a qualified mainframe operator or two.
Just like you need a qualified windows "mcse" or something with your solution,
dresden. They make a similar salary.
>> My god, you are a huge idiot.
> funny, I was just thinking that of you
Funny, I totally debunked your little "solution" with clear logic and
numbers, and you still believe your fantasy that compaq makes something
other than toy computers for toy applications.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: RAID on Win2k Pro
Date: 8 Oct 2000 03:30:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rlf4p$2t0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Hi Drestin,
>>
>> > You are right - you need the Server edition (not Pro) to create RAID
>> > volumes. Sorry about that. I use server on just about everything (I
>> > advocate pro for end-users but I run server myself ("cause I want to")
>> > and didn't think before typing.
>>
>> That's OK. I had wanted to do it with NT4 WS and at that time I found
>> Microsoft had disabled the feature.
> Not "disabled," "never included" is accurate.
>>
>> Unfortunately I believe this is characteristic of Microsoft's respect for
>> my data: In this case Microsoft has gone out of its way to make sure that
>> I can't use a system of data protection that would save my data in event
>> of one of my hard disks failing. Why? Because they're not happy with me
>> just paying for a business OS for my computer.
> oh, excuse me? so, you believe that ANY OS that doesn't provide RAID
> natively
By and large, the denizens of COLA do not deal with such operating systems.
Your point is moot.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 8 Oct 2000 03:37:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rldv5$ko2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:8rfp69$r59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > But, see that "T" in TCO? It's not "CO" which is what your describing
>> > here.
>> >> > Sure, it cost $0 "CO" for the open sores(tm) version versus >$0 "CO"
> for
>> > the
>> >> > MS solution but you asked about "TCO" - TOTAL cost of ownership.
>> > Ahhhhh...
>> >> > see, after you've got these stacks of CDs sitting there and it comes
>> > time to
>> >> > actually install, configure and use these items does the "T" portion
>> > kick
>> >> > in. Try sharing those star office files with anyone, what's the
>> > performance
>> >> > of that MySQL database? Need replication? Transactions? full SQL-92
>> > support?
>> >> > stored procedures worth a damn? Did you want security? Compability
> with
>> >> > everything? Support for everything? I argue that Windows is much
> easier
>> > to
>> >> > install, configure and use than Linux. It's the "T" portion of TCO
> you
>> > need
>> >> > to focus on, the "CO" part is easy. Remember, Linux (et. el.) is only
>> > free
>> >> > if your time is worth nothing...
>> >>
>> >> I need a database that is starts at 1.5 terabytes and is growable to 35
>> > terabytes
>> >> with no tweaking, and is also capable of handling 70,000 transactions
> per
>> >> second. What would you suggest for hardware, software and OS?
>>
>>
>> > Hmmm ok, how about something that does more than that?
>>
>> >
> http://www.tpc.org/results/individual_results/Compaq/compaq.pl8500.00100601.
>> > es.pdf
>>
>> > Posted today. It beats the previously posted IBM DB2/W2K TPC-C record
> and is
>> > cheaper. It has 43 terabytes of storage ... big enough for you boyo?
> Guess
>> > what - it's the new king. I don't see Sun or *nix even remotely close...
>>
>> 43TB? Thats it? DB2 has no limit. AIX. Sorry about that.
> Limit? What limit? Did I even remotely suggest that 43 tb was ANY sort of
> limit? again, you are twisting the words out of desperation.
Alright then, what is the limit?
>>
>> And lets see, according to this document, the measurement interval was 30
>> minutes. The number of transactions completed in this interval was
>> 33,811,291. Thats with a "ramp up time" (sorry, I work with platforms
> that
>> dont use these sorts of terms) of 48 minutes, and a rampdown time of 40
>> minutes.
> Translation: I have no idea what these terms mean, why they would be used,
> how they impact the numbers and what I've gotten myself into
Actually, I know exactly what all of them mean.
Since you dont deal with this sort of system, you dont.
>>
>> But lets be fair: 33,811,291 transactions in 30 minutes. 30 minutes
> would
>> be 1800 seconds, which would give us a grand total of 18,784 transactions
>> per second.
> So, instead you decide to try to play with your calculator and come up with
> some random figures ...
Alright, what would the average of transactions per second be for a sample
time of 30 minutes during which 33,811,291 transactions were executed?
>>
>> Which is about 25% of what I asked for. I asked for 70,000. And thats
> AFTER
>> "ramp-up" time.
> and since you didn't define "transaction"
Transaction means the same thing no matter what database application youre
using, dresden.
> you of course have no ruler
> whatsoever for comparision and hence are not even remotely in the ballpark
> for discussion. If you knew what a TPC-C transaction entails you'd know it
> wasn't a single operation of any kind, instead, an entire unit of multiple,
> atomic steps.
I wasnt talking about a single operation. I was talking about a TRANSACTION,
which is why I didnt say "operation" in my original post, brainiac.
>>
>> And do you realize that compaq is charging over NINE MILLION DOLLARS for
>> this product?
> which beats the hell out of the $14,232,696 that IBM charges for it's lower
> performing attempt.
Thats actually not how much they charge. You are *sorely* misinformed, as
usual.
>>
>> I could buy 4 IBM machines/licenses/software bundles which could EACH do
> what
>> I asked for for that price.
> Since you didn't define what you wanted to do -
Hmmm. Ill quote from above:
>> >> I need a database that is starts at 1.5 terabytes and is growable to 35
>> > terabytes
>> >> with no tweaking, and is also capable of handling 70,000 transactions
> per
>> >> second.
Yep. There it is, right there where I say "capable of handling 70,000
transactions per second".
Interesting that you only see the things that support your trolling.
> who knows what you are
> asking for. And since we'll be riding on the backs of flying pigs the day
> IBM (or sun) charges less than Compaq I think it's fair to say that you are
> again wrong.
You have no idea what IBM charges, apparantly. You are speaking once again
from total lack of experience, yet somehow you expect everyone to believe
you anyway.
>>
>> Again, I think its sweet and kind of funny that compaq/microsoft believes
> it
>> can compete in the heavy server market.
> you are into this sweetness thing aren't you? your boyfriend buy you a new
> toy or something? Sun Tzu has a LOT to say about underestimating your enemy.
> I encourage you to continue to laugh at compaq/microsoft's first attempt.
Oh, I shall. And by the way, neither am I gay, nor do I have a boyfriend.
Compaq and microsoft are not my enemy, you binary little tool. Theyre
simply comic relief.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: 8 Oct 2000 03:37:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I'll break my self-enforced silence this once.
>>
>> Dresden, you are exactly the type of person I was talking
>> about. You are the biggest RAH RAH Microsoft cheerleader
>> I have ever heard. You absolutely will never admit to
>> there being any fault with any MS product ever. You
>> accuse anyone that says anything positive about any
>> competing operating system as being full of shit, and you
>> basically demonstrate nothing but stupidity and an
>> absolute lack of perspective in any post you put out.
> And I can see that you only read what you want to and don't understand any
> point of view other than your own agenda.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: 8 Oct 2000 03:39:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rleoh$ko2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> > Gee... Thanks Perry - couldn't have put it better myself.
>>
>> Or as incorrectly. You really need to read an entire thread before
> responding.
> I did - he was right and you were wrong.
>>
>> > See abracadabra... you won't even find support from your own NG...
>>
>> Actually, there was lots of support. If youd read the entire thread you
> would
>> have realized that.
> I did - and you don't have any which is why I wrote it.
Actually, you responded to two posts which did, dresden.
Assuming that you arent a complete moron (though god only knows why),
I must assume that your lies are malicious.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: 8 Oct 2000 03:40:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rbsck$29bm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
> wrote:
>> > "." wrote:
>>
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > Anyone with any experience knows that you either have a
> hardware\driver
>> >> > problem, or you're lying. Why perpetrate such BS? Does this help your
>> >> > precious Linux? It only serves to denigrate the weight of any
> assertion you
>> >> > make, relegating you to irrelevant. Get a clue.
>> >>
>> >> 1. I'm not lying.
>>
>> > OK. You need a new video driver.
>>
>> Actually I did one better, I traded W2K for windowsME. That driver works.
> what you mean is you couldn't figure out a server OS like W2K so loaded up
> the dumbed down newbie version and now the defaults worked on your card?
Actually, I used the detinator 3 driver, just like I did under w2k.
> Gawd! I used to think you had half a brain cell, but now I know that was an
> exageration.
Why exactly do I need to run w2k in a house full of BSD machines again?
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 8 Oct 2000 03:41:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rlb6h$ko2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Drestin Black wrote:
>>
>> >> > Come on Mike, you know one answer doesn't fit every question.
> Obviously
>> >> > there are situations where Gig adapters will excel but not in the
>> > scenario I
>> >> > was discussing/discribing (unless I misunderstood the situation). I'm
>> > using
>> >> > gig over copper quite happily at two installations - we find multiple
>> > NICs
>> >> > perform better when there are more users doing large amounts of
>> > relatively
>> >> > small requests. When the transfers are long/streams the bigger
>> > individual
>> >> > pipes are the way to go. Depends on usage, I know you know that.
>> >>
>> >> Only on sucky MS operating systems that have difficult with
>> >> context switches.
>>
>> > If I thought you even knew what you wrote means I would ask you to
> explain
>> > it but you don't and I won't.
>>
>> Aw. Dresden doesnt know what a context switch is.
>>
> Sigh... gee, why not say that I don't know how to write either while you are
> at it. Is that your childish game? Anything I say you'll simply write:
> "Dresden doesnt know ..." and of course offer NOTHING else and suck youself
> off in self-masterbatory congratulations for it?
> as I've used benchmarks that measure context switching latency I'm
> comfortable enough with the term to know what it means; suspend and save the
> hardware state of a running process (like registers, stack pointer, page
> table pointers and other things you've never heard of) and load another
> process's state - but I'm certain you'll disagree and it won't matter anyway
> so... just go get your dick pearced again
I did.
> and leave technical matters to
> grow ups
Awww...you looked up "context switch" on the web you little dickens.
I was gonna post a url for you and everything.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 8 Oct 2000 03:42:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:2cqlr8.9ld.ln@gd2zzx...
>> In article <8rlb6h$ko2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>> >
>> > Aw. Dresden doesnt know what a context switch is.
>>
>> With a name like dressed in black and his porn connections I'm
>> sure he knows what a context switch is. It has nothing to do
>> with computing though. :-)
>>
>> > Thats sweet.
>>
>> How apropriate.
> when your boyfriend and you are done making out - how about leaving this
> forum to hetrosexuals with computing skills
Ah, the homophobic pornographer strikes.
Dresden, seriously, im not gay. I would have no problem in the world
admitting it if I was.
:)
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 8 Oct 2000 03:42:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Side note #2: Last time I looked, Drestin's wife wasn't bad looking,
>> but she wouldn't excite me too much unless she had a *very* sexy voice.
>> However, as long as he loves her, I can't say too much. :-)
> I do and she loves me. And she's does but it's the whole package that
> excites me.
> I don't recall commenting on your wife? Or thinking how that would be
> related (or appropriate) to this forum? Care to post some photos of her for
> discussion?
> Honestly... I think we can discuss and even argue without having to discuss
> the appearance of ones wife.
Or the point of one's sexual orientation, eh dresden?
ahem.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 8 Oct 2000 03:43:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rlb8a$ko2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Drestin Black wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > > Drestin Black wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > what? WHAT?
> hahahahhahhhahahahahhhahahahaahhahhahhaahhhahahaahhaha
>> >> > > > <breath>
>> >> > > > hahahahhhahhahahahahahahaaahahahahahaaahahahhahahhaha
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > No you know whe he's called Dresting LACK of facts...
>> >> >
>> >> > "No"? Perhaps you'd like to learn to spell/type before making shit
> up
>> > eh?
>> >>
>> >> Drestin Lack of facts.
>> >>
>> >> Happy now
>>
>> > I'll be happy when you go away and stop using up bandwidth with that
>> > self-mocking .sig of yours (hasn't anyone told you how stupid it makes
> you
>> > look)?
>>
>> Actually, a more appropriate term for what his sig uses is "disk space".
> Actually, it's both so quite pretending to know something. Given that disk
> space is incredibly cheap who cares ... given that bandwidth continues to be
> a premium item reducing redudant transmitted data is something...
You have no idea what youre talking about.
Tell me dresden, how large is usenet? I'll take a GB per day figure.
Go ahead, look it up.
=====.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
