Linux-Advocacy Digest #281, Volume #26 Thu, 27 Apr 00 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: YOU PEOPLE ARE CRAZY-LINUX IS CRAP-WIN2K RULEZ!!!!!!!!! (Ciaran)
Re: Terry Porter is an asshole (jbarntt)
Re: Time for the MS-rats to desert (Jacques Guy)
Re: YOU PEOPLE ARE CRAZY-LINUX IS CRAP-WIN2K RULEZ!!!!!!!!! (John Travis)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (Phil Earnhardt)
Re: IBM DUMPS REDHAT!!! WhY diD it TaKE them SO lung? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
(s_Ea_DAag0n)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
(s_Ea_DAag0n)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
(s_Ea_DAag0n)
Re: IBM DUMPS REDHAT!!! WhY diD it TaKE them SO lung? (John Travis)
Re: which OS is best? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: which OS is best? (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: which OS is best? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
(s_Ea_DAag0n)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linus Torvalds ("Jim Ross")
Re: YOU PEOPLE ARE CRAZY-LINUX IS CRAP-WIN2K RULEZ!!!!!!!!! (Charles Philip Chan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: YOU PEOPLE ARE CRAZY-LINUX IS CRAP-WIN2K RULEZ!!!!!!!!!
From: Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 23:02:51 -0700
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>IBM DUMPS STOCK....SURPRIZE..THEY NO HOW STINKY LINUX IS..LINUX
IS LIKE
>THE BUILD IT YOURSELF ARTIFICIAL HEART...YOU'LL BE DEAD BEFORE
IT IS
>BUILT.
>
>WIN 2K IS GOING TO WALK ALL OVER STINK LINUX.
>
>YOU FOLKS ARE OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE REAL LIFE. HEVEN NO'S WITH
IDIOTS
>LIKE
>THE MISERABLE CLOWN TERRY RUNNING THE SHOW. HE SOUNDS LIKE HE
NEEDS A
>CLUE STICK..
>
>LINUX SUCKS.
>
>LINUX KILLS HARD DRIVES.
>
>LINUX IS A CULT.
>
>LINUX HAS NO GRAPHICS.
>
>\LINUNX HAS NO APPLICATIONS.
>
>**********WARNING DONT RUN LINUX IT WILL KILL YOUR
>SYSTEM****************
>
>
>LINUX BLOWS THE BIG SNAKE....
>
>BILL GATES IS MY HERO.
Wow. The linux community better rally quickly to refute your
obviously well thought out and highly intelligent critic.
Otherwise its doomed, eh.
Cheers,
Ciaran
BTW Im starting to feel kinda good about the fact that linux ate
your hard drive.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: jbarntt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Terry Porter is an asshole
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 05:57:45 GMT
Heh,heh,heh - watch your language, there are poor disabled ladies
visiting this group. For your penance, please buy and send her a nice
VA Linux system. It's the least you could do.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What a fucking dickhead this penis breath is. Is he or she serious?
>
> I guess it's just another lamer LinSHIT user at work.
>
> TERRY IS AN ASSHOSLE....NA nA NANANANNANANNANANNANAN!
>
> YOU LINUX SHITHEADS SHOULD EXCOMMUNICATE TERRY PORTER FROM THE CULT.
HE
> IS MAKING YOU SHITHEADS LOOK EVEN MORE STINKY THAN YOU ARE ALREADY...
>
> YUKKKKKKYYYY
>
> GET A GAS MASK....
>
> STINKY POOOO....
>
> IT'S TERRY THE SHITHEAD.....
>
> JETHRO BODINE
>
>
--
jbarntt
<Chocolate Watchband>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 06:11:42 -0700
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Time for the MS-rats to desert
You might be far closer to the truth than you think.
I found this on mis.invest.stocks. It was interesting to
me because I saw a similar scheme unravelled some 10
years ago here, in Australia. The company was called
Adelaide Steamships. It went from $8.40 to a few cents
where investors realized what had been going.
But you should make your own minds, after visiting the
sites in this post.
Subject:
MSFT - implosion on horizon?
Date:
Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:32:56 -0400
From:
Bruce Gottfred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization:
Newbridge Networks Corporation
Newsgroups:
misc.invest.stocks
Wow! Microsoft sure has been beat up lately! Surely it can't get any
worse, can it? It's a great time to buy, right?
Um, I'd wait a little while. The reason for this is that a significant
amount of Microsoft's revenue comes from side benefits of its
climbing stock price. A climb which has gone into reverse as of late,
of course.
Here's a couple of links I've posted before that explain this:
http://www.thelinuxshow.com/009_view.shtml
http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2000/rulemaker000217.htm
Basically they state that MS makes a lot of money from selling 'puts' on
its stock, and from tax credits earned on cashed
employee stock options. Stock they don't have to pay for; they just run
the printing press and "abra-cadabra" - new stock! (Too
bad about the shareholders getting their stock diluted though.)
William Fleckenstein muses a bit about the effects of the puts in
yesterday's Market Rap (look for: "What goes up" and keep
reading):
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/insight/contrarian/index.gsp?date=2000/04/25
And then there's the issue of the options. No one will be cashing in
options in this quarter at MS because they wouldn't make
anything, so say goodbye to the tax credits. Perhaps Microsoft's smart
accountants will be able to hide this loss for awhile
though. An interesting article today (which I don't entirely believe)
suggests that MS would be deep in the red if it wasn't for the
option scam they have going:
http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost.asp?f=000426/270442&s2=investing&s3=money
I notice that MS has announced that it's going to hand out piles more
options at the present market price to its zillions of
employees. I guess they had to, or else face huge walkouts. MS pays
less than the market average, a shortcoming made up by
the (until now) lucrative option scheme.
Who's going to pay for all these zillions and zillions of new options?
Oh, probably just the shareholders again with a further
diluted stock. But who cares about them, right?
[snip]
Combining all these facts together suggest that next quarter will be
unbearably brutal for MS. Even their brilliant accountants and
world-class spin doctors will not be able to disguise it. Ugly future
for this company, short to medium term.
Need more proof? How about what the insiders are doing? Paul Allen,
co-founder and member of the board of directors, has
almost sold all his stock. At a price much higher than it is now.
EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS worth:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/000426-000002.html
This article's writer assumes that Paul bailed because of the (then)
upcoming DOJ action. I'm betting that it was due to his
recognition of the house of cards that the company had become. The
company had become dependant on continued growth to
maintain present revenue levels. Sort of like, um, a pyramid scheme.
Which never last forever, do they?
Bruce
I'd really like to hear from some MS fans for a rebuttal. I'll probably
just get ignored again, though. *sigh*
------------------------------
From: John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: YOU PEOPLE ARE CRAZY-LINUX IS CRAP-WIN2K RULEZ!!!!!!!!!
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 00:43:32 -0500
Maybe linux will decide to eat him too (it should for the trash he posts
FROM LINUX). I think everyone who uses any OS would be better off. I
would imagine that even the die hard windows advocates here are
embarrassed by his trolls.
jt
------------------------------
From: Phil Earnhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 23:53:32 -0600
Opus: you don't understand the question. One more time:
Is there any technical reason at all why these changes were made in
the public namespace? Would there have been any disadvantage to doing
them in the private namespace?
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 23:13:28 GMT, "Opus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes. You could explain why Microsoft felt compelled to make
>> Microsoft-specific changes to Java and place them in the java.*
>> namespace rather than the com.microsoft one.
>
> Because Netscape did
That's preposterous! Microsoft made a change in the public API simply
for no technical reason -- simply because Netscape did?
>, and still continues today, to ship a JVM with
>Netscape specific changes to Java that have been placed in the java.*
>namespace.
Again, nonsense. Please give me a URL where I could download that
polluted JRE from Netscape today.
> At least Microsoft corrected this 2 or 3 years ago.
Microsoft failed to agree to make the changes until threatened with a
lawsuit.
Netscape agreed to make the changes after talking to Sun. Years ago.
If you think those JREs haven't been changed, I invite you to tell us
where they are available.
--phil
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IBM DUMPS REDHAT!!! WhY diD it TaKE them SO lung?
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 06:18:21 GMT
Buzzz wrong again little boy. You should learn to get the facts before
you post
http://www.it-director.com/00-04-26-1.html
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> EVEN THE GREAT SUITS AT IBM KNOW A LOSER WHEN THEY SEE ONE...
> LINUX IS THAT LOSER.
>
> LAMEST PROGRAM I HAVE EVER USED.
>
> FREAKING PIECE OF JUNK SCREWED MY ENTIRE SYSTEM UP....
(L)user error!!!
>
> DON'T USE LINUS OR YOU WILL BE SORRY...
>
> YUO HAVE BEEN WARMED..
>
> LINUX SUXXX BIG COCK>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hey everyone out there - would you base your OS choce on this childish
post??
>
> JETHRO BODINE.
>
C'ya "S"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (s_Ea_DAag0n)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 06:33:18 GMT
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 00:43:00 GMT, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Then you're blaming the OS for something that was fixable, if you had followed
>proper precautions. That's not a fault of the OS.
I wouldn't go that far. Creating my own rescue set is a rather complex
task. I know there are tools out there which do that, but its still time
consuming. It is easier just to re-install the OS than properly managing
it. If the system was an enterprise wide installation on which 50,000
people depended for the e-mail and data, it would be a different story,
but the average home user doesn't want to go through hoops to have
a contigency. (spoken like a true Windows troll, I know...)
>It's like never bothering to make backups, then blaming an OS or failed
>hardware for your loss of data. Nothing is forever... backups are
>necessary. :)
I am an absolute stickler when it comes to backups (for my data). For
the system, I never make backups and just re-install from scratch (as
in this case). This is a home system, of course, so I don't have all of
the fancy scripts set up.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (s_Ea_DAag0n)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 06:35:36 GMT
On 26 Apr 2000 10:30:10 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What did you boot to install the thing in the first place, and why
>can't you repeat with the 'upgrade' option to see if it finds
>your partitions?
I installed it as a floppy boot + LAN ftp install for the packages.
Actually ... when I did re-install it did come up to fdisk eventually
(obviously). Unfortunately I don't remember what the state of the disk
was, if they were really non-mountable.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (s_Ea_DAag0n)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 06:43:31 GMT
On 26 Apr 2000 11:19:12 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>According to Alan Cox:
>
> "All network I/O is asynchronously buffered. There is no need for
> asynchronous I/O in kernel space. glibc 2.1 provides the full POSIX
> real time asynchronous I/O API entirely in user space built on
> clone(). Thats another chunk of code we don't have to put in the OS
> kernel for no actual performance change."
This API, though, is just that: an API. It implements the POSIX interface
for asynchronous I/O, as having a separate thread for each device. This
is not scalable as for a large number of devices as it is expensive to
have a large number of threads.
>Will Linux ever scale to 64+ processors?
>
>Perhaps not under the current design. If/when 64-processor machines
>are common, you may see some changes in Linux or a migration to a
>different kernel.
For one thing you would not build a 64-bit machine on a shared memory
bus. Does Linux work on MP machines without shared memory? If not
this will require some work also.
------------------------------
From: John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM DUMPS REDHAT!!! WhY diD it TaKE them SO lung?
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 01:15:45 -0500
>Hey everyone out there - would you base your OS choce on this childish
>post??
But I'm skeerd unkle bobby ray cyrus anna bell jenkins(a.k.a. three
tooth willy). Linix is gonnna eats mys computers; JETHRO told me it was
so. I's a fixin to gets rid of dis "STINK LINUX."
jt
I know you aren't suppose to tease the trolls but this guy is
hillarious.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 06:47:44 GMT
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:53:24 -0600, Subpop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>in article 8e7u1t$o7n$[EMAIL PROTECTED], John Hill at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote on 4/26/00 5:35 PM:
>
>>
>> Subpop wrote in message ...
>>> in article 8e5h9i$qv5$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Leslie Mikesell at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> wrote on 4/25/00 7:37 PM:
[deletia]
>> If you truly beleive that you once wrote sophisticated .BAT files under DOS
>> then your opinions of the UNIX command line environment should be kept to
>> yourself. You obviously have very little knowledge in that area.
>>
>
>Gee, I don't remember saying anything about UNIX.. I don't disagree that it
>is still one of the best OSs on the market.. I was simply talking about the
>CLI and how its pretty much the old peg-box routine compared to modern
>(decently laid out) GUIs like those on the Mac or in some forms of Linux.
>
...until suddenly there is something repetitive to do...
Furthermore, not all CLI's are created equal. It's not like
we're comparing Windows to that atrocity which is command.com.
ANY unix shell is considerably more sophisticated than that.
That makes the comparisons considerably more interesting, and
the conclusions less obvious.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 08:50:17 +0200
> Details, please.
I forgot a :)
But well, imho a computer is not usable at all if it crashes without
hardwre-failure, no matter how colored or whatever the gui is
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 06:50:30 GMT
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:59:27 GMT, Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 08:40:57 -0500,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 06:11:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:40:49 -0500,
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> brought forth the following words...:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 06:04:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, that would be a far more individual thing than you
>>>>>>> acknowledge. No matter how much M$ would like to think of them
>>>>>>> as such, end users are not borg drones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Besides, a simple list of commands is far less ambiguous and
>>>>>>> less bulk of information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nevertheless, clicking on an icon for a drive letter and clicking
>>>>>>sharing seems, to me, to be something far easier for most people to
>>>>>>digest, remember, and do.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>but as my mom said, what's an icon?
>>>>>(not to mention that the drive letters aren't on the desktop, they're hidden
>>>>>in My computer, right?)
>>>>
>>>>Which do you think is more common - someone who knows what an icon is
>>>>and can do basic things with it (like right-click in a given area) or
>>>>someone who is already familiar with dir, grep, cat, pico, etc.?
>>>
>>>
>>>If someone is familiar with an icon in windows, then they are also familiar
>>>with an icon in linux, Linux does have GUI you know.
>>
>>I'm familiar with it (or really, some of _them_). Shall we call it
>>Frankenstein?
>>
>>Helix-modified-Gnome isn't all bad, but it's still a far cry from the
>>ease-of-use of Windows/MacOS's GUI.
>
><rant of the day>
>
>So can someone explain why it is I have to open a pdf file in windows in
>order to print it? I mean, under linux, dragging the file to the printer
>icon, or typing lpr file.pdf prints it just fine. Why does windows feel
>it is neccessary to open it up with adobe acrobat first? It takes a long
They feel this irrational need to avoid CLI-isms. The sensible
thing to do would be to have a commandline option to allow the
app to 'transparently' print something for you.
[deletia]
This too always annoyed me about Windows...
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (s_Ea_DAag0n)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 06:49:53 GMT
On 27 Apr 2000 10:38:57 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Your Questions have been answered here already, The Ghost in the Machine, went
>to great detail, and Graig Kelley quoted Alan Cox.
Of course if you had actually read The Ghost In the Machine's message, he
talked about high nice asynchronous I/O was, how nice the implementations
in AmgiaOS, VMS, and Windows NT are, and he admitted that Linux did not
have these capabilities either. Alan Cox also admitted that they did
not exist, and claimed that they were not needed (he is biased though,
so I take his opinion with a grain of salt :-) Both Alan Cox and The
Ghost in the Machine affirmed my basic contention that Linux does not
support asynchronous I/O.
>On the other hand you have not replied to the first question asked by me,
>you're still anonymous and still demonstrating a deficient understanding of
>Linux.
I sure did reply to your question of why kernel implemented asynchronous
I/O is necessary for performance. I didn't see __your__ reply to __my__
message.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 06:54:33 GMT
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 06:43:31 GMT, s_Ea_DAag0n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 26 Apr 2000 11:19:12 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>According to Alan Cox:
>>
>> "All network I/O is asynchronously buffered. There is no need for
>> asynchronous I/O in kernel space. glibc 2.1 provides the full POSIX
>> real time asynchronous I/O API entirely in user space built on
>> clone(). Thats another chunk of code we don't have to put in the OS
>> kernel for no actual performance change."
>
>This API, though, is just that: an API. It implements the POSIX interface
>for asynchronous I/O, as having a separate thread for each device. This
>is not scalable as for a large number of devices as it is expensive to
>have a large number of threads.
...that's really quite funny.
Unix is BUILT on the notion of having an absurd number of process,
a typically more expensive unit of concurrency than a thread. The
notion that something wouldn't scale due to 'too many threads' is
rather bizarre on it's face.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linus Torvalds
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 03:02:10 -0400
Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8e8kh1$rc8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Actually, one interesting problem here is why M$ has not taken
> Intel's more conciliatory approach -- it would have saved them a heck of a
> lot of trouble. I have this picture of Bill Gates calling up Andy Grove
> and saying "I'm now in deep antitrust doo-doo, and it's taking a lot of
> time and resources that could be used for our next market conquests. But
> you've always managed to escape that. How do you guys do that?"
>
> Also, I remember someone commented that a helpful bit of advice
> is "Don't moon the giant". Netscape mooned a giant -- Microsoft -- and
> has paid dearly. M$ has been mooning an even bigger giant -- the US
> Government -- and I'm sure that Judge Jackson will try his damnedest to
> keep M$ from getting away this time.
>
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
Actually it seems in the US you are much better off not admitting to
anything.
Make them prove it, and if they do, they aren't sure, and tend not to throw
the book at you.
Make it hard/expensive to prove, thus making you think twice about attacking
them.
This reasoning which seems to prevail seems screwed up to me.
Instead we should give people a break if they cooperative/tell the true and
worsen the
penaly if guilt is proven since they (the accused) effectively impeded
justice.
In reality it doesn't seem to happen, and police or whoever aren't force to
keep their word.
They will bend the truth to hear what they want to (a confession?)
So Microsoft's actions don't surprise me.
In fact they reinforce the fact that they are jerks and not just in a
business sense, but in all dealing probably.
The OS market seems very disfunctional I feel MS must be causing it, if it
can't be clearly seen to the general public how.
Jim
------------------------------
Subject: Re: YOU PEOPLE ARE CRAZY-LINUX IS CRAP-WIN2K RULEZ!!!!!!!!!
From: Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 27 Apr 2000 01:39:07 +0500
>>>>> "quietclam@freewwweb" == quietclam@freewwweb com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>writes:
> IBM DUMPS STOCK....SURPRIZE..THEY NO HOW STINKY LINUX IS..LINUX
> IS LIKE THE BUILD IT YOURSELF ARTIFICIAL HEART...YOU'LL BE DEAD
> BEFORE IT IS BUILT.
> WIN 2K IS GOING TO WALK ALL OVER STINK LINUX.
<snip>
LOL. This is really funny considering you are using Netscape 4.7
[en] on
Mandrake Linux to post this message. Your headers
betrayed you.
Charles
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
