Linux-Advocacy Digest #287, Volume #31 Sat, 6 Jan 01 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: RPM Hell ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: open source is getting worst with time. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 22:40:54 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 5 Jan 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 4 Jan 2001
> >> >Fine, Linux can't replace windows on the majority of users systems
(yet).
> >>
> >> That's where your wrong. According to your own "any script on Unix can
> >> be done on NT" logic, Linux is perfectly capable of entirely and
> >> completely replacing Windows on every user's system. It just can't
*be*
> >> Windows.
> >
> >What???? Your logic is flawed.
>
> How so? You have stated that any script that can be written on Unix can
> be written on NT (despite the falsity of this claim to begin with) under
> the "its just software" argument, saying 'perl and bash are available
> for Windows'. By the same token, of course, any OS is a complete
> replacement for Windows. There is nothing incomplete about Linux.
Virtually any useful software that's available for Linux is also available
for Windows, the same cannot be said of the reverse.
> >> >Perhaps someday it can, but Microsoft isn't known for standing still.
> >>
> >> No, its known for breaking the law and establishing the largest
criminal
> >> monopoly the world has ever known, actually.
> >
> >IBM was in anti-trust trials for 20 years.
>
> And didn't have even a small amount of the success at monopolizing that
> Microsoft did, and they've only been in existence for a bit over 20
> years. IBM didn't *start out* monopolizing, as MS did.
MS was in existance for over 6 years before IBM licensed MS-DOS from them.
> >> MS didn't "replace" competitors; it destroyed competition. Microsoft
> >> constantly churns its product; inside communications reveal that this
is
> >> done knowingly to prevent competition on the merits, despite the
> >> knowledge that it is a detriment to the consumer.
> >
> >If it was a detriment to the consumer, the consumer wouldn't buy the
> >upgrade.
>
> So it is, so it must be. And you wonder why I bring up Microsoft's
> constant efforts to force consumers to upgrade, despite their
> reluctance.
If they didn't want to do it, they wouldn't.
> >> >I can say that easily because I also can see
> >> >competant competitors that don't let MS get a foothold, such as Intuit
and
> >> >AOL.
> >>
> >> Hyuk. If only we were all so naive.
> >
> >Why don't you try addressing the comment instead. Can you counter this
> >statement with any facts?
>
> No, because the statement is not fact; it is supposition. You presume
> that because there are some companies which ostensibly compete with
> Microsoft, therefore Microsoft cannot be monopolizing.
No, my statement is that MS is only a monopoly because it's competitors
failed to compete. Given an alert and competant competitor, MS is too large
to compete with it effectively.
> Its a vapid
> assumption, not a statement of fact, that "competent competitors that
> don't let MS get a foothold". In point of fact, it would seem that
> *certain* competitors have not been entirely destroyed by the monopoly
> (and more than adequate reasons can be seen in the characteristics of
> their market themselves),
"not completely destroyed" makes it sound like MS has nearly destroyed them.
Intuit still holds 90% of the personal finance market. AOL still holds 70+%
of the Online Information Service market. That's not "not completely
destroyed", that's eating MS's lunch in that market.
> and you wish to presume that this is the
> definition of competence, and by that pretend to "prove" that competent
> competitors are not destroyed by anti-competitive monopolies, and
> therefore all that are destroyed are simply incompetent. Its silly,
> really. No, the continued existence of Intuit and AOL does not provide
> any working support for hypothesizing, let alone concluding, that
> Microsoft does not act anti-competitively, thereby raising prices above
> competitive levels and excluding alternatives.
Raising prices gives competitors more of a chance to compete. Hell, Corel
lowered it's prices to ridiculous levels and still couldn't sell office
software. People just didn't want it.
> >> >The Amiga died not because of competition, but because it's parent
company
> >> >was incompetant. [...]
> >>
> >> Enough with the drivel.
> >
> >You're going to claim that Commodore was competant? Give me a break.
>
> It was popular. I leave all other speculation (outside of my own
> opinion as an owner that it was a very good system) to those who prefer
> to second-guess the incompetence of others, so that they may try to
> convince themselves of their own competence, by proxy.
Yet you don't mind making comments about how it's "drivel".
> >> >Windows is in fact a reliable, efficient and effective for me. [...]
> >>
> >> I noticed the subtle yet glaring ad hoc qualification, there, Erik.
> >> What's up with that?
> >
> >Because it's an opinion about my useage.
>
> Bullshit; its an "escape hatch" to make your opinion unfalsifiable. It
> also makes it meaningless and arbitrary, but you would have to have some
> intellectual integrity to care about that.
Opinions, by definition, are unfalsifiable. I don't need to qualify one to
make it so.
If I say, in my opinion, the sky is green. It could very well be from my
perspective (I may have been taught that the color blue is green).
> >> >I don't claim inexpensive, but then again, it's awfully expensive to
> >retrain lots of
> >> >people.
> >>
> >> Huh, what? Is this the excuse? NT is more expensive than WinDOS
> >> because of 'retraining' costs? Retraining who? And what possible
> >> relationship would that have causing NT to necessarily cost several
> >> times what WinDOS does?
> >
> >No, Linux is more expensive than NT because of training costs. NT/2000
> >costs more because it does more. It's a workstation level OS rather than
a
> >consumer level one.
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha.
So, you're going to claim that it's cheaper to retrain 50,000 employees in
Linux than to maintain a Windows environment?
> >> I think its awfully shameful that people don't recognize NT pricing for
> >> what it is; a complete sham. Its a scam; a way to increase prices. NT
> >> software doesn't inherently *cost* any more to produce.
> >
> >No, but NT most certainly did cost a lot more to produce than Win9x did
(by
> >produce I mean R&D, and maintenance).
>
> Yes, but to even suggest that this is important is to bring up the idea
> that a product's price is based on the cost of development. But that
> would make the price scalable, so that WinDOS would cost about $2 today,
> and NT would already be down into double digits. Oops. Maybe you
> should try a different fib, er, I mean argument.
You're forgetting the costs of marketing, advertising, distribution,
printing, and a host of other things.
> >> Microsoft
> >> doesn't include the cost of any support for the product, there are no
> >> outrageously exorbitant OEM license fees that MS has to pay, the CDs
are
> >> not a thousand times greater in quality. The only thing that makes it
> >> more reliable is its replacement of DOS with this VMS-like thing to
> >> support the Win32 API.
> >
> >Retail copies of NT/2000 include support in the price. OEM copies do
not,
> >which is why OEM's pay less (in addition to volume pricing).
>
> Per-processor licensing agreements are not "volume pricing". Microsoft
> has been in the habit of referring to them as "volume discounts" since
> they were shown to be illegal, but the term you're looking for is
> "cliff's-edge pricing", which refers to the actual cost to the OEM of
> providing monopoly crapware, without which they would go out of
> business.
No, MS doesn't use per-processer licensing. They use either per-model
pricing for large OEM's, or volume "pack" licensing through distributors to
smaller OEM's.
> They pay less because if MS tried to charge them any more, it
> would break their pre-load lock-in, which is a fundamental support for
> Microsoft's illegal monopoly.
Oh, so you admit that MS can't raise prices for fear of losing market share.
There goes the monopoly theory.
> >> Microsoft, as I've noted, has been rather busy lately coming up with
> >> ways to force consumers to pay more for the product that MS says they
> >> want everyone to buy, NT/2K/Whatever, to replace WinDOS. But any
> >> profit-seeking company can tell them how to do that; charge less money
> >> for it. Less then you are, hell, less than WinDOS. It doesn't
actually
> >> *cost* any more.
> >
> >It does cost more. You are forgetting about the cost to develop, which
must
> >be amortized over the life of the product. MS has spent many billions
> >developing Win2k and Whistler. That has to be paid for.
>
> No, it doesn't. Because it already was; the "profits" from DOS alone
> were more than enough to pay for them. Its a scam, you putz. The cost
> to develop is not related to the price of the product, or else the cost
> would go down over time, and it hasn't.
There are fixed costs, and remember that MS continues development for quite
some time. Something has to pay for new versions of DirectX, Windows Media
Player, etc.. which are all downloadable free even by users of the original
Windows 95.
> >> >What you labor under is the assumption that people *WANT* to learn
about
> >> >computers.
> >>
> >> Some do, some don't. Some will at any one time. Most will at some
> >> times, and won't at others. I am under no assumption that it is to my
> >> benefit to second-guess the market.
> >
> >You certainly had no problem second-gussing the market when making your
> >original comment.
>
> No, that was probably double-checking. The difference is potentially
> subtle and always abstract, so I'm not sure you you'll be able to
> understand it. I'm not at all sure what you're pretending to refer to
> as my "original comment", though, so if you'll be more explicit, I'll
> try to explain it to you.
Ok, since you have to be so thick headed. You said :
"Perhaps sufficient users wouldn't agree with you that they'd appreciate
the choice. Perhaps it really does fill you with... discomfort, to
contemplate people learning how to use computers, and being free of
Microsoft and its software and their dependency on paying someone else
to gain value from their own property."
> >> >The vast majority of people who use computers don't want to know
> >> >how or why it works. They just want it to work.
> >>
> >> And here we get to the problem.
> >
> >Most peoples computers do work, be it Windows, MacOS, or Linux.
>
> You can say that some of the peoples computers work all of the time, and
> all of the peoples computers work some of the time, but you can't say
> that all of the peoples computers work all of the time. So designing
> computers around the premise that they will usually work, and thus have
> no capability of continuing to function adequately if anything at all
> should go wrong in the slightest, is, well, only fit for monopolists.
> Anyone who might require that their products be able to compete with
> alternatives and still provide profits are generally going to recognize
> that they sometimes fail, and attempt to make such failures as minimally
> problematic for the consumer as possible. This is generally why
> obfuscation of software code, for instance, is generally considered a
> bad thing, even as developers make jokes about 'job security'.
Try to bring a Television in for repair. It will cost you 3x the cost of a
new TV to fix it.
The notion that products are disposable is quite common.
> >> >Each release of a MS OS
> >> >get's closer and closer to the ideal of the user not having to know
much of
> >> >anything in order to install and use it and it's applications. Linux
> >> >distros, on the other hand take very small steps (if any at all).
> >>
> >> That's because the "closer and closer" that "each release" of an MS OS
> >> is supposed to be taking has been covered with existing computing
> >> technology for decades. The "ideal" is to not have an "ideal"; there's
> >> no one right way to run a computer, just the way you want to, and
> >> possibly the way someone else does.
> >
> >No, there isn't one right way, but in order to have consistency, one way
> >must be chosen. Consistency is the basis for reducing training and
support.
>
> Consistency does not mean everything must work identically; it means
> everything must work according to the same fundamental mechanisms. This
> is the argument that Unix people have for avoiding krufty "bolt-on"
> development the way Microsoft practices it.
Really? So KDE works in the same fundamental mechanism as GNOME? Not.
Consistency means things work the same way all the time.
> Microsoft's approach is to
> pretend (in addition to pretending that nothing ever fails, as stated
> above) that the fundamental mechanisms of how a computer works is
> unimportant to successfully using a computer. Its delusional, but it
> serves the monopoly well. Also, despicable people like you that trumpet
> the value of ignorance in order to promote the monopoly.
Actually, that's Apple's philosophy.
> >> Linux distros don't *have* the kinds of problems that MS OSes have
> >
> >Thats not true. Linux has it's own form of DLL hell with dynamic library
> >dependancy conflicts.
>
> Library conflicts are only theoretically related to DLL hell. They are
> problems which affect related parts of an OS. The cause of library
> conflicts is free market development; the correction is knowledge. DLL
> hell is caused by design deficiencies in the Windows platform; the
> correction is limited to ignoring it (the Microsoft way) or abandoning
> Windows, and potentially all monopoly crapware, entirely.
It's also a design deficiency of most Linux distro's and their apps.
> >> regardless of your confusion based
> >> on the problems which you report that you did have. I don't care if
you
> >> have problems; everyone has problems.
> >
> >You just said Linux doesn't have them.
>
> No, I said it doesn't have the class of problems you were referring to.
> I said that the problems you experience weren't Linux problems, but Erik
> problems.
Of course. Yet the problems you have with Windows are not Max problems.
> >> Those who use MS OSes have more
> >> problems, whether its contrary to your personal experience or not. And
> >> that's where the added "bonus" of "not wanting to know how or why it
> >> works" comes to bear on the difference between plain shoddy goods, and
> >> monopoly crapware. You and your intentional ignorance. Fuck it.
> >
> >Automatic transmissions outsell manuals by an order of magnatude today.
>
> Yet you see no manufacturer of automatic transmissions plotting to
> destroy manufacturers of manual transmissions in the marketplace. Go
> figure.
That's because an automatic transmission cannot compete with a manual one.
They are two different markets by their designs.
> >It's because most people don't WANT to be concerned with the details of
> >shifting gears. Likewise, people don't want to be concerned with the
> >details of their OS.
>
> You can double-check some of the people all of the time, and you can
> double-check all of the people some of the time, but you can only
> second-guess all of the people, all of the time. Again, the fact that
> manual transmissions are still widely available, and widely purchased,
> proves the falsity of your understanding.
My statements are not false. Manual transmissions are popular with a small
subsection of the population, that doesn't mean that the people that drive
automatic transmission think "I wish I knew exactly how this worked".
> >> Fact: People deal with the real world, where skills have to be learned
> >> in order to benefit from them.
> >
> >Some do. Otherwise everyone would be their own mechanic.
>
> Oh, you read ahead, did you? You'll notice that most people pump their
> own gas, a good number of people change their own oil, and there are no
> licensing agreements necessary to understand the inner workings of the
> engine, if that is your desire. You don't see the auto manufacturer's
> changing the specifications of their cars routinely in order to
> discourage such behavior, though it wouldn't entirely surprise me if
> certain professional mechanics might think that would be a good thing.
BMW prohibits you from installing any car stereo other than a BMW one in
their cars or you warranty is void.
Why do you think Ford and GM make so many special tools to work on parts of
their cars. To discourage you from doing it yourself.
And most people don't change their own oil. Hell, I could change my own oil
but i'd rather pay someone to do it for me. I just don't have time to deal
with the mess.
> >> You don't have to be a mechanic to drive a car. But that doesn't mean
> >> driving a car does not require skill and knowledge.
> >
> >It requires a tiny fraction of the skill and knowledge of being a
mechanic.
> >You seem to expect everyone to be a mechanic.
>
> On the contrary; you seem to expect that knowing the turn signal from
> the accelerator is knowledge only fit for mechanics.
Not at all. Knowing where your power switch, and how to click a mouse is
equivelant.
> >> >Linux is not that OS (yet). The market *HAS* decided (for now)
> >> >that Linux is not yet acceptable for the vast majority of users.
> >>
> >> The other side of the coin is that it is obvious there is no free
> >> market, until it decides there can be a suitable substitute for
Windows.
> >> That seems to be more reliant on how bad Windows gets, rather than how
> >> much Linux might improve.
> >
> >I don't think so. Windows is improving, not getting worse.
>
> That would explain the wide adoption of Windows ME, and the popularity
> of W2K.
60% of IT managers say they will be installing Win2k this year.
> >> >> No, we gripe about Windows. That's not FUD; that's being stuck with
> >> >> monopoly crapware.
> >> >
> >> >Stating things that are untrue is FUD, or lying. Take your pick.
> >>
> >> We gripe about Windows; we don't state things which are untrue.
> >
> >That's a lie. You yourself have said many untrue things.
>
> Only in your rather bogus opinion, or by mistake.
So you admit that you just lied when you said you don't state things which
are untrue?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 22:42:55 -0600
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:935l0c$2sd$02$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > First of all, how would you know if it was "latched" at 100% CPU during
> > the
> > reboot? There would be no way to tell.
> >
> > Second of all, I'm a programming consultant, that also does
administration
> > in some situations and am a corporate officer for 2 startup companies
(CTO
> > to be specific).
> >
> Has it never occured to you that nowhere was any statement that said this
> were happening during reboot?
Go back and reread the thread. We're talking about rebooting after a
blue-screen automatically.
> The infamous 100% utilization VERY effectively prohibits ANY further
action
> of that NT-machine. You simply have to press reboot or that big red one.
> Your very fine settings to reboot on BSOD do not halp here.
They help here because that's what we're talking about. Specifically,
"driving to the office and seeing a BSOD on the screen".
> And it still is quite easy to get a NT into that state. I have seen it
> happen 3 times in the last 3 month (NOT on the same machine, 3 different
> ones). NT is shit, even if you deny it. Just stop telling lies about how
> easy, stable (take your pick) it is.
> It's simply not true.
I've never seen what you're talking about, but still, it's irrelevant to
this discussion.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 23:41:51 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> > You are making things up. No one said you needed to read the terminal manual
> > to edit a file.
>
> Then why do you keep chastising me for not getting XEDIT to run in
> a sane, predictable fashion because I didn't read the 3270 manual?
>
I did not. If you read my posts, you will see that I chastised you for not reading
the XEDIT manual, not the 3270 manual. I chastised you for blaming the developers
of xedit for problems that were inherent in the 3270 hardware.
>
> It' helps not to contradict yourself within the space of 2 posts.
>
But I did not contradict myself.
>
> > I said you should read the 3270 manual if you want to have
> > anything approaching an intelligent conversation about the design of xedit and
> > whether certain design decisions made sense, given the hardware available.
>
> "The Hardware" behaves the way that the software on the embedded controller
> tells it to behave.....re-affirming once again that IBM software sucks.
>
What software in what embedded controller? Where is this software? What is the
part number of this embedded microprocessor you keep talking about? Who made
it? Intel? What is the machine architecture? Is it an 8-bit microprocessor?
How about 32-bit? You are making things up again.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 23:43:51 -0500
"." wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Linux had better get it's collective ass organized if it ever hopes to
> > compete for desktop market share with Windows and Mac. In it's present
> > state it is a conglomeration of disjointed half completed works.
>
> > I received my Mandrake update CD this week and decided to give
> > Mandrake 7.2 another whirl, partly because I am bored at the moment
> > and partly because I was hoping that this one was the big winner.
>
> That's a scientology term. Suddenly everything falls into place.....
I'm not familiar with scientology lingo....what did you spot?
(just curious)
>
> -----.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
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 (C) 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]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 23:44:56 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > You fucking dumbass. MS did NOT appeal the verdict.
> > They appealed the SENTANCE.
> >
> > They're guilty as sin, and they know it.
> > They're just pissed that the judge handed down punishment which
> > will actually put a stop the the criminal activity.
> >
> > > MS did not break the law.
> >
> > That strange...by failing to appeal the finding of guilt,
> > MS's lawyers admit that, in fact, MS DID BREAK THE LAW.
> > ( 60 counts, no less!)
>
> Thanks for pointing that out. Again. The fact that MSFT apologists seem
> to be completely unaware of this just totally bumfuzzles my brain.
>
Call it deliberate ignorance.
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
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 (C) 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]>
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 23:46:03 -0500
BradyBear wrote:
>
> Well, I decided to give KDE 2.0.1 a shot. So I downloaded all the
> relevent rpm,s. But before I can install my shiny new desktop, I need
> to install the latest version of QT. So, I go grab QT2.2.3. Great. Got
> the rpm, type rpm -i and I get failed dependancies... qt needs lib.so
> this and that etc. So I do a search on rpmfind and find three packages
> that I need. Package one needs me to upgrade rpm. So I go get the rpm
> update. Package one now installs. Package two still needs another
> lib.so.etc. Installing pakage three will break App A. So now I need
> to upgrade App A and the whole damn thing starts over (more failed
> dependencies, more broken app's) and the whole thing escalates
> exponentially until I've basically had to update the whole damn OS.
> The whole time I'm doing this, I keep thinking of the last line from
> the movie "The Bridge over the River Kwie" ... Madness...Madness.
> And it seems appropriate. Build a bridge so you can blow it up.
> That's Linux
When you're through lying, be sure to tell us, OK
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
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 (C) 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: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 23:58:46 -0500
JM wrote:
>
> >That's odd. Baseball is much more popular than cricket in Japan and
> >Laitn America. I don't recall cricket being an Olympic sport.
>
> And I don't recall cricket players needing giant gloves just to catch
> an already over sized ball.
>
But having a larger ball makes it harder to catch.
>
> >> The rest of the world plays Rugby whilst you play Gridiron
>
> >Probably soccer more than rugby.
>
> What's gridiron?
>
American or Canadian football.
>
> >> And yes I do expect you to retain the kings/queens english! It is the
> >> standard way of spelling words.
>
> >Don't hold your breath.
>
> Why not?
I wouldn't want him to get anoxia. :-).
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 05:04:44 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:HVX46.8256$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What third party product are you talking about? Windows 2000 Server ships
> with Terminal Services in every copy.
Which is useless if you don't have a Microsoft OS at your end.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
