Linux-Advocacy Digest #165, Volume #35 Tue, 12 Jun 01 17:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Stuart Fox")
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (Mark)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) (Mark)
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Stuart Fox")
"Re: KDE and Gnome are totally 80s (Rex Ballard)
Re: UI Importance ("Stuart Fox")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed ("Stuart Fox")
Re: The Microsoft PATH. ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Mail Order Brides? Check this place out! (Kmart Shopper)
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Getting used to Linux (Nico Coetzee)
Re: ZDnet: David Coursey Attacks that Horrible Operating System: Windows ("Bobby D.
Bryant")
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (GreyCloud)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (drsquare)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (drsquare)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (drsquare)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 07:51:46 +1200
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 07:59:46 +1200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> >Linux advocates told me that Linux with X would run fine on a 486,
with
> >16MB
> >> >memory so I tried it. It didn't.
> >>
> >> I hardly think it's Linux's fault that you don't know what you're
> >> doing.
> >
> >I got it installed, and configured X - I hardly think that classes as
> >"don't know what you're doing"
>
> I thought you said you couldn't get it working properly.
No, my words were "Linux advocates told me that Linux would run fine on a
486 with 16MB memory so I tried it. It didn't".
There's nothing there about getting it working properly. It was working
properly, it was just fucking slow with X. Of course, XF86Config didn't
actually work, so I had to adjust the config file myself, but yes, it worked
properly, slowly.
>
> >> >It ran fine with no X loaded.
> >>
> >> Why would you want to load X anyway?
> >
> >Everyone kept saying how good the Window Managers were. It was an
> >experimental box. Why wouldn't I want to load X - should I check Linux
out
> >without checking things that are available. Here's a new one for the
> >Linvocates - why would you want to load X anyway? That really fucks Joe
> >User.
>
> Who really gives a fuck about him?
Microsoft. That's why they have a monopoly on the desktop.
>
> >Are you saying I shouldn't use X, even though it's flexibility and
> >customisability and usuability make it far superior to Windows? (sarcasm)
>
> No, I'm saying you should use bash.
That's fine for me, I work with computers for a living, I can figure it out.
Not so good for ordinary Joe User though
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:13:06 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Cox wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 10 Jun 2001 19:39:09
>> >"Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> ah, I can hear it all again - 640k is enough for anyone.
>> >
>> >huh? What does that have to do with anything?
>>
>> It shows how much Microsoft's technical deficiencies can slow the
>> progression of increasing hardware resources. In consideration of how
>> long the need for DOS-compatibility made the 640k barrier an issue, IA64
>> could take many years to be adopted by a large proportion of the
>> industry.
>>
>>
>As usual Max, you're wrong. The 640K limitation had nothing to do with
>DOS and everything to do with where IBM decided to place hardware in its
>memory map for the IBM PC. Before everyone standardized on IBM
>compatability there were several manufacturers making boxes that had
>more contiguous memory space available than IBM did.
My recollection is that DRDOS 7 from digital in the UK made the extended
memory available for use by dos apps, whereas MSDOS 3.31, the competing
OS at the time did not.
DRDOS was then adopted in large numbers (it also had a multi-tasking
capability and a gui in which windows could be run as a process).
Microsoft then began another of its illegal campaigns to stamp out
the competition (in this case DRDOS), whilst desperately trying to
catch up with DRDOS. MSDOS4 was complete junk, unreliable and generally
rubbish, MSDOS 5 was getting closer to what DRDOS could do, a *long*
time later.
Bill G had seen no reason to deal with the 640k limitation in *MSDOS*
until it was fixed in a competing (and superior) OS.
--
Mark Kent
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 07:49:14 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:02:18 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>David Brown wrote:
>
>>> Of course, the light bulb was originally Scottish, most of the practical
>>> work on the foundations of computing was done in Britain (with a number of
>>> prominent Dutch theorists as well), the web was Swiss, and a whole bunch
>>> more.
The WWW was invented by a British guy working at Cerne, so it's half
British and half Swiss....
--
Mark Kent
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 07:54:17 +1200
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:01:09 +1200,
> >>
> >> What was your window manager ?
> >
> > Can't remember, the default that came with BugHat 5.2 (Enlightment at
that
> > stage - probably a little heavy for the box)
>
> E gad, Enlightenment is sure pretty and cool, but its huge and slow
compared
> to many other wm's.
>
> If your still interested, try something like xfce, flwm, icewm, blackbox
etc.
I sold the box when I went overseas. Now I run Slackware 7.1 under a VMWare
session, which runs better than the 486 ever did. I also have a copy of
BigSlack installed on my Win98 PC at home.
> Same as I have running my router.
>
> Thats not so slow, and with 32 megs ram would have been tolerable
> with X and flwm. I also think a kernel below the 2.2 series as well,
> because they are faster.
I suspected that adding more memory would have helped, but I couldn't find
any of the right type.
Using X was like wading through treacle.
------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: "Re: KDE and Gnome are totally 80s
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 19:59:00 GMT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============4B50546AE99913E2B232DAFC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Corpus Callosum wrote:
>
> <flame>
>
> Why are KDE and Gnome both attempting to replicate Microsoft Windows
> when technologies like XML and CORBA would make something so much
> more elegant possible?
Lets give this guy the ignorant idiot award!
KDE and GNOME both use CORBA and support industry standards such as
XML.
It's Microsoft who refused to adopt CORBA and opted for DCOM instead.
In fact Linux supported SGML, which is much more powerful and
flexible,
but Microsoft Windows 9x couldn't handle SGML very well. Instead,
Microsoft
sought to push XML, complete with auto-loding ActiveX controls,
VBScripts,
COM/OLE objects, and executables. Put simply, Microsoft didn't like
the fact
that SGML plugged all of their favorite security holes.
> Why are they still coding user interfaces in C or C++ when XML would
> be so much better?
The low level objects are C or C++, and this is primarily to optimize
the
organization of cache and swap space of the library. You can use
Python,
TCL/Wish, or PERL, along with any other language that supports the QT
or
GTK toolkits.
XML is a protocol. You can write good transactions using XML
protocol,
but you still have to have parsers to decode the elements and stuff
the values
into objects. You also need serialization of objects to convert
object properties
into XML streams. These are built into CORBA. SOAP is a good
protocol, but
you still have to tie it to the business rules.
You can often do trivial binding to trivial databases using ODBC to
XML, or
having databases that generate XML. But when you are dealing with
complex
business logic and finite state machines, you need something a bit
more
complex than SQL with a "Return as XML" option.
> Consider this: Imagine an XML markup language for defining user
> interfaces using GTK or QT. Tags might look something like this:
>
> <button name="cancel" inheritThemes="yes" text="Cancel"
> onClick="some::kind::of::object:address()"/>
You could do this, but you would probably rather use the GTK language
bindings.
oops, I'm sorry, you're referring to that proprietary Microsoft
language.
> Then every user interface including the desktop could be declared
> in XML. Users could customize interfaces or write.. get this.. whole
> new ones that draw upon the functionality of multiple applications!
How many hours did you study the GTK and QT manuals to decide that
this
couldn't be done? How many Weeks did you study the Microsoft C# and
.NET manuals to come up with this clever concept.
> Imagine being able to write your own XML interface definition to
> merge, say, a seperate mailreader and web browser together! Or a
> code editor and a debugger?
You seem fixated on using XML exclusively, as if that were the only
method of describing a complex scripted interface. The fact is that
UNIX has had scriptable configurations since X11R3, and what is
amazing
is that now that Microsoft has "Innovated it" you think it's the
greatest
thing since sliced bread.
I had nearly every desirable feature of Windows 2000 in 1991 on my
Sparc 5.
I had similar features on my RS/6000. Every time I went back to
Windows 3.0
or Windows 3.1 it was like going back to the stone-age. And Windows
NT 3.51
was even worse since even the Windows 3.1 software didn't run on it.
Even with Windows 2000 PRO, you are still limited to only 1 desktop, 1
GUI
user, and 1 MDI Application instance at a time. Perhaps XP2 will have
some of the advantages that Linux sported in 1993. Possibly in 2003?
We've been using scripted configuration back when Microsoft Windows
2.0 was
still using tiled windows. In fact, UNIX offered the advantages of
"Terminal
Server Edition" without the memory overhead, back in 1989.
And here in 2002, we have things that Microsoft still doesn't want you
to
know about. I'd tell you all about them, but they still haven't paid
me
for the last 47 "innovations" I've presented over the last 15 years.
> Don't like how the menus work in
> your application? Open a text editor and change them!
Take a look at a directory called "App-defaults". Granted, it's
1980's
technology, but it still provides so many of those wonderful features
that you have just been introduced to in the BETA version of XP.
We also have full scripting in LISP, a predecessor to XML with very
similar
notation, and several other GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE/Open Source window
managers.
Microsoft didn't even try to hide the fact that they are using GPL
software.
They simply plugged in a SAX parser (also open source), and gave it a
new
trademark. I suppose they even tried to patent it. :-)
> It would also be much easier and more flexible for app authors since
> they literally would not have to worry about the pains of X and GUI
> programming... they could just write their XML to call their event
> functions through an ORB of some kind. Applications could even
> be controlled over the network via CORBA or something similar.
Gee, this sounds very much like the Python interface to GTK or Qt.
You are fixated on Microsoft's use of the overpopularized XML moniker.
The real question is whether Microsoft will let you create real
scripts
in XML.
> That would be like, totally 2001 man!
Yawn. Actually, we abandoned that approach a about the time of Xview.
A simple hierarchal script was pretty effective, but you get so much
more bang for the buck when you use object oriented scripting
languages
like
> But instead the KDE and Gnome teams are sitting there listening
> to Totally 80s trying to duplicate Windoze and coding UIs in
> C and C++ that look and feel like Windoze when even M$ is
> gradually moving towards something like I mentioned above.
Keep in mind that Linux has over 200 scripting languages available,
including XML/SOAP. By using C and C++ to implement the low level
shared library, they could plug their GUI toolkits into almost all
200 languages without rewriting anything.
Some of these are compiled languges like Java, others are interpreted
languages like PYTHON or TCL (plenty fast for most modern
workstations),
and others are compile-and-run like PERL. Furthermore, they can be
interfaced using CORBA, shared libraries, or just static calls.
By the way, there's a language called smalltalk-80 which might look
surprisingly familiar. But then again, Bill stole it from Steve who
stole it from Xerox. But Xerox GAVE the technology to the X
consortium.
Furthermore, Xerox gave other features to UNIX that Mac and Windows
are still not allowed to use.
If you'd like to see what Microsoft will be offering in 2010,
get a copy of Mandrake 8.0 or SuSE 7.1 with the 2.4 kernel, the
EASEL desktop, the KDE Desktop, and the full suite of applications
all configured and ready to run on your desktop.
> Taaaaake onnnnn meeee.... take on me.... taaaake meeeeee
> ooooon! ... I'lll beeee goooone...
>
> Love shack! Baby, Love shack!
>
> </flame>
--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.open4success.com
==============4B50546AE99913E2B232DAFC
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="rballard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Rex Ballard
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="rballard.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Ballard;Rex
tel;cell:973-723-4008
tel;work:973-723-4008
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:IBM Global Services;EAI National Practice
adr:;;491 Valley Rd;Gillette;NJ;07933-2111;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Cons IT Architect
fn:Rex Ballard
end:vcard
==============4B50546AE99913E2B232DAFC==
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 07:57:51 +1200
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9g1om6$qvo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >
> I never messed around much with DOS but I remember hearing many
> complaints about "batch files". Seems the programmers who did
> have to work with them thought their conditional tests and branching
> primitives were very limited.
DOS batch files are reasonably limited. Under NT, there's cmd.exe which
adds a bit more flexibility (decent for loops, etc)
>
> If COMMAND.COM had such constructs then was 'ren' a builtin ? Or
> an external command ?
ren is a builtin, as is copy, and dir. xcopy is external.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:01:28 +1200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Not exactly unbiased, then.
> >>
> >No, but then neither is Mr Devlin
>
> Yes I am.
"monopoly crapware" is hardly an unbiased term. It pops up in every second
post you make. You also contend that every action Microsoft takes is that
of a monopolist, because they have a monopoly in one area. You are so
biased against Microsoft it's not funny.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:09:07 +1200
"Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3b26471a$0$263$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=21403
> or
> http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2772060,00.html
>
I suspect what they've probably found is that the Internet server market
penetration is probably accurate, but they've probably just included the
internal server market, where Windows & Novell are more likely to be
slugging it out.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Microsoft PATH.
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:11:01 +1200
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:12:22 GMT, webgiant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > Frankly, I wish the Linux community had also had a period without a
> > GUI. There'd be more console-only software and games for starters,
>
> We use the cli daily, there are lots of games and apps for the console,
> someyou will *never* see under Windos.
>
But you can still play nethack on Win32, that's the only console game worth
playing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kmart Shopper)
Subject: Re: Mail Order Brides? Check this place out!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:17:34 GMT
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:48:24 GMT, flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
hurled this gem ...
|On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 20:20:07 -0600, Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|wrote:
|
|>On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 01:50:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|>
|>>Has everything you need to know about "buying" the perfect Russian wife.
|>
|>>These men are the hardcore losers and if you read some of the messages you'll begin
|to see why.
|>
|>Hey, let's all chip in and get Aaron one!
|
|
|According to one of the messages on that sorry site it cost's upward
|of $10k to buy one of these fine ladies.
|
|I must be naive but I thought slavery went out around 1865 or so?
|
|Is that site some kind of a joke that I'm missing or are those idiots
|for real?
|
|Just curious.
|
|
|flatfish+++
|"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
Oh, it's real. There is, however, a cheaper way.
All you have to do is meet a resident Russian woman.
Chances are she'll have family still in Russia.
A couple of phone calls and before you can say
"holy ruskie bush batman", the bride-to-be will be knocking on your
door, mutant child in tow. 6 months later, after some quick English
study, said ruskie bush will be telling you that America sucks.
I know a guy who works at the local supermarket in just this
situation. It's a real goof.
===============================================
Vs nffubyrf unq jvatf, P.B.Y.N. jbhyq or na nvecbeg.
===============================================
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:23:46 +0600
In article <3b2659de$0$2636$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jon Johansan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would easily agree that such situations exist and occur, perhaps
> even frequently. However, this study was clear in that it looked at
> shipped copies; i.e., those with some sort of support attached.
% export MODE=DENIAL
% export NOW=HAPPIER
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:21:05 +0600
In article <3b265951$0$2676$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jon Johansan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Weird - what are you on?
Reality.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:36:01 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Getting used to Linux
mlw wrote:
>
> I remember years ago when I first started using Linux. I was a little scared
> about trusting data and stuff to an OS written by volunteers, but I told myself
> I would have to go cold turkey if I was ever going to do it.
>
> That was in 1996.
>
> I have not lost one bit of data to Linux. I can count all the crashes on one
> hand. My pay scale has doubled.
>
> I will never go back to Windows.
I can double that! I have lost data twice under Windows NT. The last
time, I used Linux to get some of the data back, as Linux was the only
system that could still mount that NTFS partition. But some of the data
was so corrupted, although I could copy it to a normal disk, it was
useless. To this day, no one could tell me what went wrong. It was
classic - Dr Watson pops up, 30 seconds later the PC reboots, and NT
never came up again.
;)
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ZDnet: David Coursey Attacks that Horrible Operating System: Windows
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:30:52 +0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Applebee"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ;)
>
> Want Windows on your desktop? Nine reasons to forget about it
>
> David Coursey, Executive Editor, AnchorDesk
I'm not going to waste my time reading ZDfud material, but I *will*
mention that I went to see my parents last week and got re-accustomed
to the "joys" of the Windows desktop (WinME), and after a 3-night visit
I'm convinced that Linux will knock the Windows desktop dead as soon as
corporate/consumer inertia and fear of the unknown allows it to happen.
WindowsME is cr*p. It's now clear why all the MS execs are singing the
"Linux is dead on the desktop" tune. Unless they're completely out of
touch with reality, they have good reason to be very, very afraid of
Linux.
Attention all Linux advocates: If you haven't used Windows for a while,
strand yourself somewhere where there is only a Windows machine for a
couple of days. It will refresh your perspective on things, for sure.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:48:49 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9g3e80$bj6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Rotten168" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
in
> > > message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > [1] Tamed the West -- an internal matter, to be sure, but quite
> > > > an accomplishment given the primitive technology at the time.
> > >
> > > Not impressive, people had done more with less beforehand.
> > >
> > > > [4] First man on the moon.
> > >
> > > And nothing significant ever since.
> >
> > The internet isn't significant?
>
> I was talking about significant in space exploration terms.
>
Viking, Pioneer, Voyager, International Space Station, and all the
other probes, nothing significant, your must be right.... (sarcasm)
The US switched from very expansive maned space program to an unmaned
program, which was cheaper. Also the budget for NASA has been cut and cut
and cut over the years, so they have to make due on alot less money. Even
though the technology that has come out of the space program, could have
paid for it 10 fold.
If it was so easy to send men into space, why has anyone but USSR (Russia)
and the USA sent men into space?
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:53:11 -0700
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> > >
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ed Allen
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote
> > > on Sun, 10 Jun 2001 01:01:16 GMT
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > >In article
> > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > >GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >>Chad Myers wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> It's pretty standard. Anyone who is a militant rabid defender
> > > >>> of something is generally called a <term>inista.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -c
> > > >>
> > > >>Therefore, that would make you a Windowinista... Billyinista...
> > > >>Gatesinista....
> > > >>
> > > > He goes by the self proclaimed title:
> > > >
> > > > Chad Myers, jerk.
> > > >
> > > > But I do like the sound of Windowinista...
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I do; the word sounds like it trips over its own
> > > shoelaces.
> > >
> > > Multiple times.
> > >
> > > But it does seem to be an appropriate metaphor for Windows, which
> > > doesn't have shoelaces but still manages to trip over them
> > > multiple times...
> > >
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > (Pedant point: how about "Windowsinista"? Still pertty trippy, though.)
> > >
> > Lets try Windanista.
>
> It's not quite the same. You don't have rabid moronic Windows guerillas
> who set up web sites to flame Linux in the droves that you do the
> other way around. Windows advocates typically like Windows, keep the
> Penguinistas from spreading too many lies, and extol the virtues of
> Windows once in awhile. They have nothing to prove because they
> just want to use what's right. Penguinistas, OTOH, earned the title
> because of their militant and underground nature of attack, propaganda,
> and flame.
>
> -c
When is MS going to fix VC6.0?? I've had that tool for over a year now
and no fixes.
--
V
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance...
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:01:08 +0100
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:25:11 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>drsquare wrote:
>> >>But most other developed countries have more relaxed laws than
>> >>America. For instance, in most countries you can look at a woman
>> >>without being sued for sexual harassment.
>> >
>> >Not to mention most civilised countries allow 19 year old adults to drink
>> >margaritas with their Mexican mush if they want to.
>>
>> Never mind Bush, they may as well bring back Hitler and be done with
>> it.
>
>Errr, right.
Errr, yes.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance...
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:01:10 +0100
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:17:47 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>drsquare wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 01:34:47 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> (Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>
>> >drsquare wrote:
>>
>> >> >W2k rockz and linux suxors. Need I say more? :)
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, American Windows and foreign Linux. Now what does that tell you?
>> >
>> >Linux is a flavor of an American OS.
>>
>> Written from scratch by a Finn...
>
>Based on an American OS.
For use on something derived from European technology.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance...
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:01:12 +0100
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:20:51 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>drsquare wrote:
>> >Now we are supposed to feed them too? Why don't the Dutch do it?
>>
>> Typical American attitude. Let the children starve to death whilst we
>> send pieces of metal into space for fun.
>
>Starve to death? Most of the children in America are obese and getting
>fatter.
Oh right, you're not American so you can starve to death. If this is
an example of 'patriotism' then I was right in speaking against it.
>If you cannot understand why space exploration is important than you
>have a teeny tiny little brain.
Yeah, it's important to waste all that money so we can see some pretty
pictures of some stars!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
