Linux-Advocacy Digest #90, Volume #35 Sat, 9 Jun 01 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("JS \\ PL")
Re: IBM Goes Gay ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Very interesting cracker article, and XP warning. ("Stuart Fox")
Re: 25% of computer users have physically attacked their computer (Terry Porter)
Re: Desktop Linux (Terry Porter)
Re: UI Importance ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Why homosexuals are a threat to heterosexuals (Hacker D.)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Here's a switch for a change (Terry Porter)
Re: Here's a switch for a change (Terry Porter)
Re: Desktop Linux (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Terry Porter)
misc.test (Jesse F. Hughes)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:08:02 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> I'm wondering if that has been resolved even now.
> I'll admit, though, I don't tend to use exceptions in my code.
It has been. These rules are as always elaborate, but
the basic idea is that the destructor of a thing is
run if and only if the constructor of that same
thing ran to complete (and did not throw).
This means that if you throw out of a constructor,
you have to do your own cleanup, but not
your base-classes cleanup. Destructors can assume
that they won't be run unless the constructor
complete successfully, though.
[snip]
> >But the IDE sure is nice.
>
> It works, for the most part; some of the backwaters in the
> IDE are a little weird though. For example, it's not clear
> that specifying libraries on a single command line, as opposed
> to some sort of file selector list, is the cleanest method of
> editing the project, especially if one has to put them in some
> sort of order (with DLLs, this doesn't appear to be an issue).
Yes, I find that annoying too.
> They also duplicate check boxes. This isn't too bad as long as
> they're kept in sync.
I haven't seen them lose sync yet.
> I have had the IDE crash 2 or 3 times on me -- although it's not
> clear whether it's the IDE, or the underlying widget set.
I've seen it. It's the IDE. The widgets are very reliable. And
anyway, everyone uses the widgets, so everyone would
crass the same if that were the issue.
Actually, someitmes it's not the IDE- it's the
compiler itself. It's a shade, um, buggy.
> Both
> times, I lost unsaved work (fortunately, each build saves all files),
> and I was left with a graphical subsystem with a weird little
> rectangle, that was the drop-down for the combo box (which makes me
> wonder whether it is the underlying widget set). This in spite of
> the fact that the IDE is long dead; I had to log out to get
> rid of the stupid thing.
I bet you were in the debugger. There are ways to
get into a deadlock where the debugger won't let
the message that need to be handled be handled,
and parts of the UI will freeze up.
It doesn't happen often, but I've seen things not
unlike what you describe. If you can't get it
unstuck you wind up having to kill
the IDE as well as your own project, which
is no fun.
> On Win2k, I haven't crashed the IDE yet, so maybe that was the issue.
> I hope so.
This suggests it was the compiler that did you in; on Win9x,
if the compiler fouls itself, it can corrupt all sorts of other
things, too. On Win2k this is not true.
> The C++ compiler itself is run-of-the-mill; the 5.0 variant had at
> least one problem with memory allocation, screwing up code (at one
> point I could prove this with a snatch of code and its assembly output,
> but it's long since been lost) -- although, again, it could have
> been an issue with the OS (NT). I don't know if the 6.0 variant
> is the best of breed from a performance standpoint, or not (my work
> doesn't require that the C++ be optimized to death).
> It's also picky; the '::std' is actually required -- although that
> might be more an issue with the STL implementation.
That's "std::" I think; they did make an effort
at a having a good STL implementation, and that's
the way STL is supposed to work.
> (I can't
> complain about this too much; the standard requires that the
> name prefix be used, either explicitly or by adding 'using namespace std;'
> somewhere in the code -- Gnu G++ isn't quite as knowledgeable
> about namespaces, apparently.)
G++ can do namespaces now, I think, but the
standard libary it ships iwth is rather behind the
times.
> And then there's #pragma warning(disable:4786). Aaargh!
> Did MS intentionally limit their linker to 256 characters so that
> developers will give up on STL and use the MFC collection classes
> instead?
No, they build their linker before the STL existed
(apart from a research project). Annoying warning,
though.
> One wonders.
Why would they want to to break the STL? It's
not like the MFC collection classes are anything
special.
Nor is it like it's easy to write realistically
portable STL code. There is a lot of compiler
and library variation.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:08:06 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001
[snip]
> >> Are you familiar with the phrase "turing complete"? One could write
any
> >> program to do anything.
> >
> >Yes, and I know what it means, too. It does not
> >mean that you can write a program to do anything,
> >but rather anything that a turing machine can do.
>
> I never claimed you could right a program to do "anything". Don't be a
> such a putz.
Er, to quote you back to yourself, "One could write
any program to do anything."
Which is indeed not so, but you did claim it.
> >Turing machines can't emit DB/2 databases.
>
> Again with the 'turing machines'.
Well, that's what turing completeness is
all about. I have, as it were, heard of it.
Well, you did ask.
>What is it with you? Do you think
> any computer is a "turing machine"?
No. They are stictly speaking deterministic
finite automata- if you want to be picky.
Finite memory will do that to you.
But our programming languages (like
Java) model them as if they *were*
Turing machines.
Except they have extra features turing
machines don't, like I/O support.
> >Java *can*, because it has capabilities that
> >turing machines do not- the ability to do stream
> >I/O, in particular.
>
> Now not even that definition works. What the heck are you talking
> about?
I am saying that the ability to emit DB/2 databases
does not follow, even if a language is turing complete.
[snip]
> >Sometimes. What I have here is a question: how
> >is IBM involved in WFC, really?
>
> I haven't the slightest idea. Why would it matter?
I dunno. I tend to figure it's better to know
these things.
[snip]
> >That claim has not been made by anyone except
> >you, so far. Care to substantiate it?
>
> You are mistaken. I only repeat the claim I have heard others make.
Not on this thread.
> These others are more technically aware of the details than I, so I'm
> afraid you'll have to track them down for an explanation. I haven't a
> clue who they might have been, but check Google; it was very recent.
In other words, you can't defend you claim.
Swell.
[snip]
> >Hardly.
>
> Why? If I claimed I was a great author, but used ghost writers for
> everything I wrote, would that not suggest I might not be as competent
> at writing?
As I said, the notion that the bulk of MS-labeled
software was written outside of MS is unique
to yourself, Max.
[snip]
> >> They cannot handle even the OS; they lifted most of what is touted as
> >> "benefits of Windows" from others, as well.
> >
> >MS does their own implementations of these
> >things, though. They seem to be able to handle
> >that much.
>
> What documentation do you have that this claim is true?
It's what every history of the industry has to say
on the point. You know that, Max.
[snip]
> >I think MS's software is frequently well
> >designed, and often better designed than the
> >competition.
>
> We know that; again, it is not really much of a surprise. One suspects
> you must stupid or dishonest to have such an opinion, though I realize
> you regard that as bigotry. Or, rather, you pretend to.
No, no, no! It's not bigotry- it's a rhetorical tactic.
But I'm surprised you feel that stupidity
could prevent me from even *having* such an
opinion.
> >They rarely get the implementation right on
> >the first try; it's the good designs they use that
> >allow them to overcome this in later
> >revisions of their software.
>
> So why bother with the forced bundling, leveraged licensing, intentional
> use of 'churn' to deter competition, and all the other anti-competitive
> strategies.
Microsoft is extraordinarily aggressive; they don't
turn down any chance to promote their stuff, as far
as I can see.
> I mean, really, if MS were competent to even take other's
> good designs and implement them well, as you pretend, they wouldn't need
> to do all that.
I don't think they did need to do a number of the
thigns they've done. Though distribution *does*
count, and they'd have been putting themselves
as a disadvantage if they played it your way.
I think they could have overcome that disadvantage,
but Bill Gates got where he is today through
paranoia- he wasn't going to assume they overcome
it.
> Considering the federal government seems to believe
> they have laws against that kind of thing, you'd have to seriously
> question whether you are just being stupid or dishonest in holding such
> an opinion.
Yes, the federal government does seem to believe
they have laws against competition.
Mores the pity- they may well be right about that.
> >Comparing the Macintosh's journey to OS X
> >and Window's journet to Windows 2000 is very
> >instructive in this regard.
>
> You're babbling again, Dan.
Would it help if I said I meant "journey"
instead of "journet" above? :D
More seriously- Microsoft's journey to
32-bit protected mode was greatly simplified
by their early decisions that OS data structures
would be accessed through opaque handles,
using only APIs.
The Macintosh in many cases used
transparent data structures and pointers,
and some things could be done only via
direct manipulation.
This is one reason why Apple could not
bring things like pre-emptive multitasking
to *existing* applications. Microsoft and
IBM both managed to do this for the
original Win16 apps.
Another area were foresight paid off
is MS's message-based control system.
In Windows all controls are manipulated
by sending them messages rather
than by using purpose-built APIs,
as on the MacOS. This is much more
flexible; it meant that it was easy to
support the far more complex standard
controls that have become commonplace
since 1990.
Apple, though, had better implementation
in the early days- they got a working
GUI to happen in 64k, which is astonishing
when you think of it. Windows never ran
adequately in 10 tens that much RAM.
One particular case where the two approaches
may be compared is regions. Regions are
data structures that track areas- usually areas
of screen, which can be irregular. It is a region
that records which parts of a window are visible,
for instance. They are key to making overlapping
windows actually work.
Apple's regions are implemented using a very
fast compressed-bitmap format. Regions of
arbitrary shape can be manipulated and combined
extremely quickly. The regions internal format
is partly defined in the docks- it starts with
a rectangle that encloses the entire region. The
only way to discover this rectangle is to
look inside the data structure.
Microsoft's regions are presented to the
programmer as an opaque handle- no information
about the internal layout is given, and you
must use APIs to discover anything about
the region. But the implemention happens
to be a list of rectangles, rather than a bitmap.
A list of rectangles works well for
rectangular regions, but for complex
regions it gets far too large. Thus
Windows had no non-rectangular windows,
because they were too slow.
Windows only supports non-rectangular
windows today because computers
have gotten so fast that very long
rectangle lists are acceptable. The algorithm
is still lousy.
But using an opaque handle means
the implementation can be changed;
and MS has done this in order to
move regions out of the little 64k
heap that they originally lived in.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:08:11 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9ftqlt$7ru$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:jYrU6.72274$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > A *lot* of the problems and general weirdness
> > of MFC are due to issues of this sort.
>
> That doesn't excuse the CSocket nightmare, though.
I've never used CSocket. Should I be
happy about this? What's wrong with it?
> > I do agree about the C++ implementation- it's
> > one of the least complete modern compilers.
>
> It's also one of the oldest implementation, though.
There may be a relationship there. :D
> > But the IDE sure is nice.
>
> The IDE is great.
> IntelliSense can be a god send, sometimes.
Yes, I've come to rely on it more than
is probably good for me. But I wish it
was faster.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:08:16 GMT
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 16:23:13 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
[snip]
> >Dubious. If I buy a book and mark it up with
> >a yellow highlighter, is that vandalism? Have
> >I violated the copyright of the book's author?
>
> If the bookshop did that then yes.
How about if the bookshop sells you the
yellow highlighter, as well as the book?
------------------------------
From: "JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 20:08:00 -0400
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> I somehow think not. You're looking at at least £60 for a new hard
> disk.
No I'm not looking at spending a dime on more storage, my HD is more than
enough to fit Windows XP. So is most every other installed hard drive on
earth (except yours I guess). Don't blame Microsoft if you can't afford a
hard drive manufactured for this millenium. If all you can find wrong with
WindowsXP is five guys on earth might have to finally upgrade their 50mb hd
then I guess that's actually ADVOCATION of XP.
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM Goes Gay
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 12:10:05 +1200
Please tell me Aaron, honey, how does it effect ME!
Matthew Gardiner
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> pip wrote:
> >
> > flatfish+++ wrote:
> > > [snip]
> >
> > This thread really does have no place here.
>
> deviancy effects EVERYONE.
>
> >
> > Please!
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
> can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> K: Truth in advertising:
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
> Special Interest Sierra Club,
> Anarchist Members of the ACLU
> Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
> The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
> Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
>
>
> 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....
>
> 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
>
> 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"
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> 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.
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Very interesting cracker article, and XP warning.
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 12:17:20 +1200
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Form@C wrote:
> > "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > news:9fu323$m9v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >
> > <snip>
> >> Okay, so you got routers capable of IPv6, it won't be wide-spread use
> >> until MS support it.
> >> Beside, MS putting IPv6 in the OS will give the IPv6 supporters a lot
> >> more power when pushing the routers manufacterers.
> >>
> >
> > perhaps the wrong group to ask but...
> >
> > anyone any idea if M$ is putting it into the XP release?
> >
> > <ducks to avoid flaming arrows etc... ;-) >
> >
>
> I´m sure they would love to...
> But first they have to understand how IPv4 actually works...
>
Beta implementation of IPv6 for Windows 2000 & NT4 here:
http://www.research.microsoft.com/msripv6/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: 25% of computer users have physically attacked their computer
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 10 Jun 2001 00:18:54 GMT
On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 11:48:51 -0600, Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 13:32:32 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>Get TweakUI, it lets you disable it.
>>I believe that Win2K has it disable by default.
>
> Personally I find a 5-pound mallet more satisfying.
>
I tried tweakui with Win98, in an attempt to get
Network Neighbourhood back on my wifes pc, but
I was not impressed with all the glitz, just to
alter some hidden, obsufcated, binary config file.
And it didn't help, no matter how many reboots I had to do!
--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Desktop Linux
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 10 Jun 2001 00:24:20 GMT
On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 22:22:56 GMT, Jesse F. Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Robert Morelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> What's really pathetic is that a lot of UNIX folks still think TeX is
>> an "advanced" and "powerful" system.
>
> Golly, so do I. At least, I would not like to typeset mathematics on
> anything else. I'm very pleased with LaTeX.
>
> I must be pathetic.
Me too, why I'm just pathetic!
>
> --
> Jesse Hughes
> "The only 'intuitive' interface is the nipple. After that, it's all
> learned." -Bruce Ediger on X interfaces
> "Nipples are intuitive, my ass!" -Quincy Prescott Hughes
--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 12:26:16 +1200
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I think you are mixing up two different concepts... windows of any
> version is not unix and vice versa. All things on unix are considered
> as character streams and these character streams can go anywhere. It
> doesn't matter if bash uses an external program to do things as these
> external programs are standard with all unix systems. I've never seen a
> unix system without sed, awk, grep, etc. These are small programs that
> are loaded efficiently and execute their task very efficiently. Windows
> may do these same such tasks differently, but in the end the results
> will be the same. Its just a different way to do things is all.
>
I'm not mixing anything up - the CLI is as useful as the tools you can use
in it. I use awk and grep on a regular basis in Windows, because they're
useful tools. However, claiming the command line is crippled without
acknowledging the existence of external executables is dumb.
Bash the shell is not awk, or sed or any of those tools. It's just the
interpreter. Likewise cmd.exe is not ping, or awk or sed. Now, you might
like to claim that cmd.exe has a crippled interpreter, I don't know. But I
don't agree that the command line is crippled.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are a threat to heterosexuals
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hacker D.)
Date: 09 Jun 2001 20:27:41 -0400
drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 23:31:01 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >Have you been raped or something?
>
> No, his boyfriend's dumped him, that's all.
Yeah, Bill Gates has very little time for personal relationships these
days... Maybe he'll pump his idol, Dubya, up the ass a couple of
times. I know one thing - W. Bush and Aaron both have approximately
the same mental capabilities (the IQ of a brick).
So Aaron, how does Dubya's semen taste?
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:29:19 GMT
drsquare wrote:
>
> Yeah, GIMP has a very long way to catch up. It only works if you've
> got GNOME installed anyway.
I haven't use PaintShop Pro lately (bought a live copy of it about
a year and 1/2 ago.) GIMP seems comparable.
Oh, and go figure this out... GIMP runs in Gnome and Windoze!
(I'll bet it will run in KDE too if you install the libraries
it requires.)
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Here's a switch for a change
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 10 Jun 2001 00:26:26 GMT
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:13:08 +0800,
Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So he'll probably spend about a week *trying* to get Linux to *install* on
> his system only to find out he can't run shit.
>
> -Todd
Thats right Todd, if he wants to run shit, he better stay with
Microsoft products.
>
> "flatfish+++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I just got back from an early morning visit to the local CompUSA and
>> while browsing the aisles this guy and his wife come in carrying what
>> appears to be a PC and a box containing Windows98ME upgrade.
--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Here's a switch for a change
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 10 Jun 2001 00:27:44 GMT
On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 21:18:52 GMT, flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:13:08 +0800, "Todd"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>So he'll probably spend about a week *trying* to get Linux to *install* on
>>his system only to find out he can't run shit.
>>
>>-Todd
>
>
> That's what I figure and then he'll be back screaming about Linux as
> well.
If he does, then what can we conclude ?
That computers and software are complex things, ignorance is not an asset
when using them ?
>
>
>
--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 20:32:32 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Desktop Linux
Robert Morelli wrote:
> I've been using LaTeX daily for well over 10 years. I can pretty easily
> visualize what it's going to do most of the time, but including graphics
> is definitely one of the weakest points. In fact, the TeX system on
> which LaTeX is based doesn't have even a single graphics primitive.
http://www.lyx.org/
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 10 Jun 2001 00:30:32 GMT
On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 19:12:47 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> > In any case, it is nothing like what you've accused me of. You accused me
>> > of snipping inappropriately, and I've done none of that.
>>
>> I also accused you of that Pete!
>
> And I've still not done it!
Interestingly ... thats what you said last time!
>
>> > That you have
>> > misinterpreted what I've said is not my fault, but yours. You see what
>> > you want to see.
>>
>> This is the perfect method to NEVER solve anything Pete, you're so convinced
>> that it's *everyone else* who's wrong.
>>
>> Let me ask you this one question ?
>>
>> Have you ever admitted to being mistaken/wrong ?
>
> Yep. Here on COLA.
Wheres the evidence ?
Please post your evidence here.
>
> --
> Pete
--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
Subject: misc.test
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesse F. Hughes)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:36:00 GMT
--
Jesse Hughes
"Well, you know as soon as you have a new number I will be happy to
add it to the list. Don't try those childish tit-for-tat games with
me." -- Ross Finlayson on Cantor's theorem.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:38:02 GMT
JS \\ PL wrote:
>
> No I'm not looking at spending a dime on more storage, my HD is more than
> enough to fit Windows XP. So is most every other installed hard drive on
> earth (except yours I guess). Don't blame Microsoft if you can't afford a
> hard drive manufactured for this millenium. If all you can find wrong with
> WindowsXP is five guys on earth might have to finally upgrade their 50mb hd
> then I guess that's actually ADVOCATION of XP.
Can I give you some advice?
Chris
--
Thanks for reading my message. Please pay up. My rates are:
US $0.35 for humorous posting
US $0.55 for trolling in Windows newsgroups
US $0.60 for advice to Linux users
US $269 for advice to Windows users
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
