Linux-Advocacy Digest #587, Volume #26 Thu, 18 May 00 20:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Here is the solution ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: a great job ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Alan Boyd)
RE: What of OS - Advocacy? ("Raul Valero")
RE: HP-UX vs. Linux ("Raul Valero")
Re: An honest attempt (Leslie Mikesell)
Is Linus a terminator ? ("Raul Valero")
Re: Your office and Linux. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: If you don't like Linux then just leave! (Tim Kelley)
Off-topic ? Microsoft ("Raul Valero")
Re: Off-topic ? Microsoft (Charlie Ebert)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for kooks) (Gerben Bergman)
RE: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!! ("Raul Valero")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:34:06 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8g1ku8$2ncr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <VLQU4.72293$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Why are you so willing to let a vendor take away your choices?
> >
> >Microsoft is not doing so. If they were I would be less
> >sympathetic.
>
> But you still haven't shown how some other vendor can or
> does provide the same services as NT or W2k controllers
> or active directory. If you have a client that needs
> these and nothing else can provide it, your choice has
> been taken away.
Well, I have provided a URL to the security support provider
documentation. My research suggests that you also need
to provide a 'creditial manager'. This is because
the SSP module isn't informed of the users username and
password; it is supposed to Just Know who you are and
provide appropriate creditials based on that.
A credetial manager listens for logins and password
changes. This way you don't have to provide your own
login prompt. (There is a way to do that too, if you must,
but its probably better to minimize that kind of thing.)
Here's a URL for you:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/psdk/logauth/mnp_portal_5ig5.htm
> >> I'd prefer that they improve the functionality instead of
> >> the lack of interoperability.
> >
> >They do; you can jump up and down and *say* they keep
> >reducing the interoperatability of Windows, but it just
> >aint *so*.
>
> OK - take two win2k boxes. Set up automatic directory
> replication between them *without* an active directory
> server in the picture. Let me know how you did it.
> (I loaded rsync and used a unix box as the master...).
Without active directory, I need some *other* directory
services. Expect MS so somehow magically provide
directory services without using MS's directory software
is, well dubious.
I could install Novell's Netware; I believe they have
directory services. Can they replicate? I don't know
very much about Netware. I do know MS ships a Netware
client with Windows, so I won't have to write my own.
Alternately if I had *lots* of time on my hand, I could
write my own directory services and a client module
to use them.
[snip]
> >Antitrust law had *nothing* to do with IBMs fall from grace.
>
> It is hard to establish cause and effect here, but somehow
> I really had the idea that IBM was perfectly capable of
> writing their own PC operating system. I think that the
> years of litigation over bundling hardware and operating
> systems had more than a little to do with the decision to
> license from third parties. Without which, no one would
> even remember Microsoft's name.
You are, in my view, mistaken. IBMs problem wasn't that they
couldn't *do* it, it was that they couldn't do it anything like
fast enough. IBM has notoriously slow development
processes.
They therefore decided to built a stopgap computer
with, insofar as possible, already existing components.
That's why they used ISA instead of something that
doesn't suck. That's also why they tried to get CP/M.
I'm sure you know what happened next.
[snip]
> >IHMO Unix would be a better OS today if AT&T had
> >treated it like a product rather than some sort of
> >fungus. :D
>
> Maybe - as it worked out it mostly got the features
> people needed instead of things that look good on
> a marketing checklist.
It got the features people needed at school.
That's a fine thing, but it still has major deficiencies as
a desktop OS.
[snip]
> >I do not agree that Microsoft has in any real way
> >benefited from antitrust laws being applied to IBM
> >and AT&T.
>
> Is there some reason to think that IBM would not have
> done their own DOS without the antitrust business?
Yes. It would have taken to long, and IBM knew it.
[snip]
> AT&T had their own CPU designs and manufacturing facilities.
> I doubt if they could have matched Intel on price, but
> we'll never know now.
You've a point there. Had they beated Apple, Commodore
et al to the punch, things might have been very different.
> >But if it is true, I'm also not convinced it would have
> >been a *bad* thing for AT&T to do this.
>
> Maybe - they weren't that great as a monopoly either, but
> they did have some basic competence. I don't think they
> would ever have designed something as fragile as DOS and
> Win 3.1 or even Win95.
Oh, I don't know. Early Unixes were very fragile, and for essentially
the same reason: the hardware wasn't able to support better.
> >You may *want* to replace the server without writing any
> >Windows code, but MS is hardly obliged to indulge you in this.
> >
> >You need to write a network client to do that.
>
> I'm obviously missing some basic concept of interoperability
> here. You claim they interoperate, yet I have to replace
> things at both ends in order to do so???
Well, no, MS provides clients for the popular network tools;
if you want to write your own you have to add a module at
the client end.
I know, I know, it's not the Unix way, so it's not "real" interoperability.
But it works.
> >But honestly, I'd think you'd be *glad* that you can use
> >Windows, but replace bits of it. If you don't trust MS's domain
> >controllers, why should you trust their client modules?
>
> Clients are disposable - the server has to keep working.
I don't think that's a very good attitude. Leads to products
like Windows 95 if you aren't careful. :D
> >> >I get the feeling you use "monopoly" as an curse.
> >>
> >> Only because it is illegal.
> >
> >That would be news to a lot of people, I think. :D
>
> Fortunately, not the ones in charge of investigating the infractions.
I thikn it would be news to them, too. They merely argue
that, being a monopoly, MS is held to a different standard
than other companies.
> >Had MS stuck to your wire protocols, they'd support Unix
> >fine, but not NetWare or SNA or AppleTalk...
>
> Say what? There are non-native-platform implimentations of
> all of those protocols. There is no reason MS can't document
> theirs as well.
They could; but their solution is better. This way they
can upgrade it.
> >You are blaming the wrong people. You certainly may avoid
> >Microsoft because they don't do things you would expect,
> >but you really need to understand that "standards" is just
> >the way Unix does it. You do *not* need to standardized
> >wire protocols to have interoperability.
>
> I'm glad you don't design phone switches.
:D
> >> There is a simple name/password verification that anything
> >> can access, but that doesn't let you participate in the
> >> domain.
> >
> >Well, "participating in a domain" in that sense means participating
> >in NT security; you aren't going to do that without support for NT's
> >security model.
>
> And where is that documented?
In MSDN. Need I provide *another* URL? Are you, like,
alerigic to Microsofts websites?
[snip]
> There is nothing I can do about it personally other than try to
> avoid repeating the bad experiences that I have mostly tried to
> forget. Remember the nice little company that developed FoxPro?
> This was a fairly good product for networked DOS machines and
> they did a reasonable job of converting to windows in a way
> that the same program could be re-used and access the same
> data files. There was even something intellectually sincere about
> the way it used its own tools internally with a database holding
> the work as you ran the screen builder, etc. Microsoft bought
> them, made a half-hearted new release, then publicly claimed
> they were going to drop the product completely in favor of
> Access. So, I had someone re-do the work in Access, which turned
> out to be horrible with its one huge shared file model under
> windows-for-workgroups and Foxpro turns out to still be around after
> all these years.
So are you complaining that MS didn't drop FoxPro?
I could understand that. IMHO they dropped the ball
on this one; they should have tried to converge FoxPro
with Access so that you could have the capabilities of
both in one database, but they didn't.
They seem to have put FoxPro on ice, basically.
I don't see this as one of their, um, more visionary
moments.
> Then there was the Dell SysVr4 Unix release that
> was pretty nice for its time and available bundled with their
> hardware. They had obviously put a lot of work into it compared
> to the base AT&T release so I expected it to continue to be
> developed and supported. But, right at the time I needed some
> support, they dropped the product out of the blue. Market forces?
> Maybe - but the timing turns out to be precisely right for it
> to have been the result of the business practices that Microsoft
> is being investigated over with their demand to bundle windows
> with every box.
Speculative. I know, with you, if Microsoft could be guilty,
they are guilty.
> >> Apparently the people doing the investigating have not been so
> >> biased.
> >
> >I dunno; a lot of them seem just as biased as you. :D
>
> Perhaps for good reasons, too.
Or perhaps they are also desparately trying to twist
everything MS does into some kind of weird plot. :P
[snip]
> >Yes. The MS apps division did, at the time, use some internal
> >knowledge they should not have- but not to *advantage*. It was
> >a *mistake* MS made, and it *hurt* them.
>
> Elaborate please? Are you saying that developing word and
> office for Windows instead of OS/2 was a bad move?
Oh, no. Not at all. That was quite smart. Or lucky. :D
The bad move was using undocumented entry points!
They entry points were not stable; they went away in Win95.
This broke stuff.
And they don't seem to have done anything they could not
have done in other, less fragile ways.
> >While this certainly suggests the Chinese Wall they spoke
> >of was not real, I still haven't found any example where MS
> >actually did cheat in the API department and benefit from it.
> >
> >It also has nothing to do with MS's advise to WordPerfect!
>
> Telling them to develop for OS/2 when they weren't behind
> it themselves is about as misleading as you can get.
You are, I presume, one again seeing conspiracies. MS
knew Win3 would succeed because MS is all-knowing
and all-powerful and so if they backed OS/2 it *must* be
some kind of plot.
> >> Networking things that start to require active directory to work right.
> >
> >Hmmm. Why that, but not, say, a new Lan Manager protocol variant?
> >They have produced such in the past, as you know.
>
> Nobody noticed.
Well, that's because MS maintained compatibility.
> They will notice when their software offers functions
> that are visible but don't work without the AD server.
Surely if MS can break compatibility with active directory
they could have done so earlier with the Lan Manager
stuff?
> >> Client features should not depend on the brand of the server.
> >
> >That's ridiculous. Of course they should. Why on earth
> >would we want to have servers *at all* if they didn't deliver
> >features we wouldn't have without them?
>
> Server 'features' shouldn't depend on brands.
Nonsense. The software industry is *not* in the business
of selling commodities. It's highly innovative; new features
are the stuff of life!
It's extremely silly to say that no-one is allowed to produce
a server produce with a feature its competitors (and its
previous versison) do not have.
> I can replace
> a networked printer with a different brand,
But apparently it can't be a *color* printer, because
they you could print in color on it, but not on any other
printer.
> I can replace
> a unix box acting as an NFS server with a NetApp.
What's a NetApp?
> I can
> replace my SMTP/POP/IMAP mail service with any other
> without any client caring about the brand. Now why should
> I ever introduce a new product onto the network that does
> limit me to only using that vendor's product at the other end?
Beats me; Microsoft's servers do not behave like that. You can
put non-MS clients on the other end. Macs, Unix boxes, whatever.
> >> If they want to stay a monopoly, then we should have government
> >> regulated pricing as in other fields.
> >
> >I disagree. Microsoft has been a *positive* force in this industry,
> >and they have been *good* for consumers *and* developers
> >*and* hardware manufacturers.
>
> Indeed, we disagree. How were the many years where DOS maintained
> it's 640K/32M limits positive for anyone? How was DOS 4.0 good
> for anyone? How did DOS 5.0's new features happen to show up
> immediately after a competing product had them?
It did take Microsoft quite a while to get Windows to the point
where it was usable. But better late the never; Microsoft took
on the hard problem of making commodity PC hardware
civilized; nobody else managed it, and few even tried.
> >*Even if* they are a monopoly, they should not be stopped until
> >and unless they do *bad* things.
>
> OK, and when people point out the bad things?
Well, I have to admit that they ought to be stopped, then. :D
And it does happen; MS is not entirely angelic,
my rants notwithstanding.
But so often, the Evil Deeds people point out are *good*
things, *positive* things they've done. Like taking code from
Office and making it available to all developers on Windows.
Microsoft does *good* things as well as bad, but a lot of
people- like, say, you :D - insists on turning everything
MS does into some kind of villainy.
> >Bad as in harmful. Not as in might-make-MS-even-bigger. I
> >don't have a problem with MS being bigger.
>
> I'm concerned with bad as in keeping other people from
> doing better things. Bad as in keeping hardware companies
> from offering better choices.
The thing that keeps hardware companies form offering better
choices is that there *aren't* any right now; Windows is
far and away the best in its market niche.
Microsofts occasional misdeeds are academic next
to that.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: a great job
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:35:00 +0000
Francis Van Aeken wrote:
> Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Come to think of it, can you name ONE way in which Microsoft has made the
> > world of computing better? I would say that he made the personal computer
> > more accessible to the average dummy with his "easy to use" Windows 9X
> > interface. That's one way. I really can't think of any other ways in
> > which Microsoft has benefitted us.
>
> They, together with Intel, brought computing to the masses. They brought us
> cheap computers and cheap software. Computer no longer is a dirty word
> and computer specialists are in high demand. In many ways, Microsoft
> paved the way for newer and even cheaper operating systems like Linux.
> Bill Gates did a great job.
>
> Francis.
>
> N.B. This doesn't mean you have to like them or even buy their products.
> You are free and you always have been free to buy a Mac, a Sun or any
> other non-wintel box.
>
Or put Linux on a Pentium.
>
> N.B. Don't give me crap about how PCs or MS sofware are expensive.
MS software is more expensive than Linux. And why shouldn't we give you
crap?
>
>
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 18:40:16 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> nohow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >I'm not saying that gates is right in what he says. I am, however
> pointing
> > >out that what you claim is not what gates is saying.
> > >
> > >It simply is true that lots of Windows' new features were first
> introduced
> > >in Office and other apps. It's also true that those implementations in
> the
> > >apps are seperate from the OS ones.
> >
> > Both the OS and Office implementation of OLE were seperate?
>
> OLE was introduced as part of the OS in 1992, it was NEVER an office only
> solution.
Wrong.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/remedies/05-10SummaryResponse.asp
The toolbar example is just one of many instances in which
collaboration between Microsoft�s operating system and
applications developers resulted in innovations that
benefited consumers. Another example is Microsoft�s Object
Linking and Embedding ("OLE") technology, which was developed
for use in Microsoft Office. Using OLE, it became possible
to embed a chart in a word processing document and have the
chart update itself automatically as information in a
spreadsheet used to generate the chart was modified. This
technology later migrated to Windows, where it evolved into
Microsoft�s Component Object Model ("COM"), a technology
used by large numbers of software developers to write Windows
applications.
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
From: "Raul Valero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: What of OS - Advocacy?
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:43:42 GMT
Obviously, we well target Solaris :-)
------------------------------
From: "Raul Valero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: HP-UX vs. Linux
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:46:18 GMT
> Do you know what is best between HP-UX and Linux. We want to create a
> web server, and we would like to know what is best does two one ????
I think HP-UX is an elefant and Linux a mouse. HP-UX can run in a very
big hardware. I've seen HP-UX redundant configurations for firewalling and
they work well. Anyway, I'd rather use Solaris or if is not a big traffic
web
better GNU/Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: An honest attempt
Date: 18 May 2000 18:45:42 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Did you double-click on the big, shiny, golden "Linuxconf" icon on the
>>KDE desktop?
>
>That's what I did.
>
>> If you did, you would have gotten a happy, shiny,
>>annoyingly- stupid-just-like-Windows-and-MacOS GUI, not an xterm. To get
>>the xterm version of Linuxconf, you would have to:
>
>That's not what I got. I got an xterm.
If you are running the desktop as root, you should see a 'drakconf'
icon which gives you a big push-button menu of 11 configuration
choices, one of which is linuxconf. Clicking it should give you
the GUI linxuconf. If you are running as a user and su to root
in an xterm, you'll have to be sure that you have given yourself
permission (xhost + if you don't mind being open) to connect
and make sure that DISPLAY is set right after the su.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Raul Valero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Is Linus a terminator ?
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:48:14 GMT
First, Linus drops away Microsoft and now, Transmeta is
going for Intel, did Linus born to kill ? :-)
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:51:24 GMT
John Travis wrote:
>
> Streamer wrote:
> >
> > John Travis wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Charlie, I'm afraid I have some bad news. Linus just called and he
> > > wants you to stop using linux immediately. He thinks you are
> > > embarrassing the rest of us (go figure). He has even threatened to
> > > start a petition (which he assures me every linux user will sign), just
> > > to get you to stop posting this crap.
> > >
> > > jt
> >
> > John, I have even worse news for you. M$ has decided to charge for the
> > cost of registering your Windows2K, so if you don't pay up within 2 days of
> > registering, they'll turn off your software and scan your disk drive for
> > other M$ programs to deactivate. Also, M$ has also decided to increase
> > their per year licensing fees for W2K, so you will have to register your
> > W2K software twice in the same year. On top of that, You still don't get
> > all the features of W2K enabled until you renew your newly expired MSCE
>
> <snip>
>
> Hey dipshit did you bother to check the headers? If you had half a
> brain you would have understood my post. I was implying that Charlie
> was a lintroll. A brain dead lab monkey would have understood that from
I'm not a lintroll. I'm a Zealot.
> the whole "you are emberassing the rest of US" part, but I guess it was
> a litlle too much for you eh? I know you get all excited when you think
> you can flame a windows user, but next time investigate a little bit
> more o.k. In case you still can't figure it out I will help you just
> this once.
>
> Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14-15mdk i686)
>
> Netscape..................LINUX..........mandrake
>
> jt
>
> --
> 1:00pm up 1 day, 14:46, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Then shut the hell up jerkwad.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: If you don't like Linux then just leave!
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 18:48:20 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is stuff to play around with for sure. But it isn't the sort of thing you
can use the way you can use windows software.
Fredrik wrote:
>
> Doesnt' cmdTaco or one of the others of slashdot do it??? THey had a
> serie running about Linux and music sequensing, etc, etc there a while
> ago
>
> Tim Kelley wrote:
> >
> > JoeX1029 wrote:
> > >
> > > All the WinTrolls complain about how hard it is, how cryptic etc... A
> >
> > Most likely the "wintrolls" are really just one person, Steve,
> > Heather, Syphon, et. al. Then there is the comna crowd, which
> > answer all the trolls' crossposts.
> >
> > Notice the same wintroll keeps talking about music production on
> > linux and how pathetic it is. how many people would try to use
> > linux for that at this point?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Tim Kelley
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Raul Valero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Off-topic ? Microsoft
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:52:37 GMT
I have a doubt. Does anything prevent Microsoft selling all of its
products to a foreign (non U.S.) company and keep on with the
monopoly from let's say (as example) Spain, Japan, Korea, etc ... ?
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Off-topic ? Microsoft
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 00:01:48 GMT
Raul Valero wrote:
>
> I have a doubt. Does anything prevent Microsoft selling all of its
> products to a foreign (non U.S.) company and keep on with the
> monopoly from let's say (as example) Spain, Japan, Korea, etc ... ?
Yes, A federal Judge can just say the hell with you Microsoft,
your product will never hit US shores again.
And a Federal Judge CAN do that.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Gerben Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot.
(was Re: The "outlook" for kooks)
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 02:00:24 +0200
Myrat Amodeo writes:
| Gerban Bergmen wrote:
Still having attribution problems, eh Myrat?
| > Marty "RAT" Amodeo writes:
|
| Having attribution problems, Gerban?
Not at all, Myrat. Why do you ask?
| Must be contagious.
It would appear that way, given how you're suffering from the same
attribution problems Stuyck and Bennett are suffering from.
| Witness Eric Bennett's attribution problems.
I'm aware of Bennett's attribution problems, Myrat, like I'm aware of yours.
| > What alleged "made-up words", Marty (RAT)?
|
| Why, the made-up words that you posted, Gerban.
You're erroneously presupposing that I posted "made-up words", Myrat.
| Still having trouble understanding the rules of word formation in the
| English language?
Obviously not. Do you?
| > Typical invective.
|
| How ironic.
On what basis do you make that claim?
| > Prove that I've posted from cable.a2000.nl before,
|
| Unnecessary.
On the contrary, it is quite necessary. You made the claim, so the burden of
proof falls on your shoulders.
| The evidence is right in front of you.
What alleged "evidence", Myrat? I'm posting from dial.wxs.nl, not from
cable.a2000.nl.
| Open your eyes, Gerban.
Unnecessary, given that they're already open, Myrat.
| > if you think you can, Marty
|
| What I think I can do is irrelevant.
On the contrary, it is quite relevant.
| What you have failed to prove is relevant.
How ironic, coming from the person who failed to prove that I've posted from
cable.a2000.nl before.
| > (RAT).
|
| Typical invective,
On what basis do you call it "typical", Myrat?
| the usual resort of one who lacks a logical argument.
Irrelevant, given that I don't lack a logical argument, Myrat. Meanwhile,
where is your logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
| > Your continued mixing me up with Pascal
|
| You are erroneously presupposing that I have mixed you up with Pascal in the
| first place, Pascal.
Nothing erroneous about it, Myrat. Witness your mix-up in the sentence you
just wrote.
| > is evidence of a reading comprehension problem on your part, Marty
|
| You are erroneously presupposing that I have mixed you up with Pascal in the
| first place, Pascal.
Nothing erroneous about it, Myrat. Witness your mix-up in the sentence you
just wrote.
| > (RAT).
|
| Typical invective,
On what basis do you call it "typical", Myrat?
| the usual resort of one who lacks a logical argument.
Irrelevant, given that I don't lack a logical argument, Myrat. Meanwhile,
where is your logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
| > There's nothing ironic about my pointing out your reading comprehension
| > problems, Marty
|
| On the contrary.
Evidence, please.
| > (RAT).
|
| Typical invective,
On what basis do you call it "typical", Myrat?
| the usual resort of one who lacks a logical argument.
Irrelevant, given that I don't lack a logical argument, Myrat. Meanwhile,
where is your logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
| > Incorrect, as I demonstrated above.
|
| I see no demonstration by you above,
Yet more evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
| other than a demonstration of your illogic
What alleged "demonstration of [my] illogic", Myrat? Care to substantiate
your claims for a change?
| and use of invective.
What alleged "invective", Myrat, other than your own of course?
--
Gerben Bergman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Raul Valero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: RE: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 00:02:48 GMT
> >: >I was a Linux user since kernel v0.92. I used Linux until
> >: >late 1996. Do you still wish to debate with me?
Those were Slackware 96 times, when Windows 95 seemed
at light years from GNU/Linux. Take a look now, laugh and
see :-)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
