Linux-Advocacy Digest #598, Volume #26 Fri, 19 May 00 11:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (nohow)
Re: New Microsoft Virus, Worse Than Loveletter -- VBS.NewLove.A (Tim Kelley)
Re: Templetonbot field test 001 (was Re: Tholen digest-[SNIP]) (Pascal Haakmat)
Re: The future... (Tim Kelley)
Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!! (Perry Pip)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Perry Pip)
Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!! (Perry Pip)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Perry Pip)
Re: Charlie Ebert: COMNA's new official punching bag... (was Re: Things Linux can't
do!) (Perry Pip)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (aflinsch)
Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!! (Perry Pip)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Lies, damn lies and statistics (Perry Pip)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux ("Colin R. Day")
RE: Desktop use, office apps ("Raul Valero")
RE: Desktop use, office apps ("Raul Valero")
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: HP-UX vs. Linux (Perry Pip)
Re: Your office and Linux. ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nohow <[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: Fri, 19 May 2000 07:16:02 -0700
On Thu, 18 May 2000 23:18:42 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > OLE was introduced as part of the OS in 1992, it was NEVER an office
>only
>> > solution.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
>Pre-OLE2 was useless. I don't even consider it OLE since it was so
>radically different.
>
>OLE2 was introduced in 1992 as part of the OS.
COM based OLE2 made it's debut in May 1993.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Virus, Worse Than Loveletter -- VBS.NewLove.A
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 09:10:32 -0500
"Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
>
> A new variant of the Loveletter VBS e-mail virus was mentioned
> on all the local news programs in Silicon Valley tonight as
> already causing severe problems in some businesses.
>
> It changes its Subject line each time it infects a new com-
> puter, and deletes almost *all* files, not just JPGs and MP3s.
> Symantec's web page says 1,000 systems have already been
> infected.
I was waiting for this, and wondering why the original
"loveletter" was so wimpy. It could've done a lot more damage.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pascal Haakmat)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Templetonbot field test 001 (was Re: Tholen digest-[SNIP])
Date: 19 May 2000 14:15:21 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
matt wrote:
>I regret that Stephen's personal vendetta against me has
>caused so much trouble.
What alleged "trouble"?
--
Rate your CSMA savvy by identifying the writing styles of
ancient and recent, transient and perdurable CSMA inhabitants:
(35 posters, 252 quotes)
<http://awacs.dhs.org/csmatest>
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The future...
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 09:19:51 -0500
mlw wrote:
>
> Looking over the landscape of the computer industry, here are some
> observations.....
>
> The Server market distinct from the Workstation is gone. Desktop PCs
> will either get smaller in the direction of thin-clients, or be
> indistinguishable from servers.
This is true ... in fact centralized servers in the future may be
limited to just what they're absolutely needed for .. look at
products like Freenet and GNUtella; they make it possible to
share files in a totally decentralized way. This is cool.
I can see perhaps four to five people sharing a PC instead of one
to one.
Even MS has doesn't use the workstation/server model, the
distinction for them is just a matter of product differentiation
> I think the NOS market is gone. Novel and whom ever is pursuing it is
> wasting their time. All real OS's will just do it right.
Oh yeah, netware is crap. The only reason it could ever exist
anyway was the fact that dos needed it. NDS for linux would be
nice. Has anyone messed with this?
> Windows is going to die. Not because of MS, exactly, but because the
> world is going towards standards. While UNIX is not a majority player,
> it is a standards based multi-vendor platform. MS will bluster about
> being the "defacto-standard" but more and more IT people are realizing
> that public standards are better than ubiquitous proprietary standards.
Windows is decadent. Anyone can see this.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 14:13:37 GMT
On 19 May 2000 02:13:40 GMT,
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: On 18 May 2000 00:44:19 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II
>: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: >Bob Hauck <hauck[at]codem{dot}com> writes:
>: >
>: >: On 16 May 2000 23:40:20 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>: >: wrote:
>: >
>: >: >I was a Linux user since kernel v0.92. I used Linux until
>: >: >late 1996. Do you still wish to debate with me?
>: >
>: >: Linux has come a long way since 1996. Your knowledge is a bit dated.
>: >
>: >I'm sure it is. I'm not arguing the technical validity of Linux here,
>
>: But you are here:
>
>: Message-ID: <8fmlur$i7f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>: http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623294410
>
>: __It's true, that X has been battered and beaten around
>: __very much, and now it is very stable under most conditions,
>: __but Linux has not had the same go around, and it's quite
>: __possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees.
>
>: You are making a claim here. Then you immediately follow with:
>
>: __This
>: __has happened to me several times, and no, it wasn't a
>: __hardware problem.
>
>: You are basing your claim on anecdotal evidence. Wait a minute, that's
>: nearly 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
>
>*sigh* Perry, you just don't comprehend very well, I'm afraid. No, that
>wasn't an insult... it was an observation.
>
>Let's analyze what I've said:
>
>"...it's quite possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees."
>
>This statement is true. It's true, because such occurrences have been
>documented, and presented.
But you didn't present any documention. Instead you give pure
anecdotal evidence that was, although you concealed it, 4 years
old. When Linux users give anecdotal evidence, you flame them and call
them zealots. That's a double standard, plain and simple.
>The reason why this has happened is because
>The X Window System runs as a privelged root process. If an X server
>suddenly decides to misbehave, X can lock up. As others pointed out, this
>does not necessarily lock Linux up, but it can make it impossible to get
>to Linux locally.
>Also notice that I said "it's quite possible". I didn't say "it will".
And if you actually _used_ Linux _today_ instead of _four_years_ago_ you
would know just how "quite possible" it is or isn't.
>You are taking what I am saying, inflating it into something it's not, and
>then claiming that I'm using the same arguing tactics as Charlie. In
>effect, you are arguing much like politicians argue. You're looking for
>deep semantic relationships that aren't there from common sense
>viewpoints, but that can be drawn by an irrational need to win an
>argument, it would seem.
I am simply quoting your posts verbatum, and providing references to
them, so poeple can see for themselves.
>In short, you keep taking what I say out of context.
I'm not hiding any contexts. I am giving URL's to Deja so people can
view the threads and see the entire contexts...exactly how the
postings have played out.
>That is your
>problem, not mine.
>If you'd stop trying to see what isn't there, you
>wouldn't need to be wasting so much time typing.
Typing?? No, I am just browising at Deja and copy&pasting the things
you have typed. You really make it easy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 14:13:52 GMT
On 19 May 2000 02:24:45 GMT,
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>: > So when a zealot of one cause changes to another cause, or
>: > even the exact opposite cause, he tends to remain a zealot.
>
>: I'm afraid I haven't seen this to be true in Stephen's case. Although
>: again, I'm sure you'd be happy to provide examples.
>
>I find it odd that people like Perry are so willing spend so much time to
>try to prove someone else's credibility to be lacking.
Kinda like you do at
http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=625285883
Again, you have double standard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 14:14:15 GMT
On Fri, 19 May 2000 02:27:02 GMT,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>>
>> Raul Valero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> : > >: >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 :-)
>>
>> When I said "Do you still wish to debate with me?", I was responding to
>> Charlie's claim that I have never used Linux, and therefore, I have no
>> right to debate its merits.
>> --
>> .-----.
>> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
>> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
>> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
>> |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
>
>I see. You must have been in debate school.
>I'm beginning to believe your not the average
>"Artifical Intelligence" scientist are you.
>
Just take it very literally: 'Artifical Intelligence' is a very
accurate description, I think.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 14:14:26 GMT
On 19 May 2000 02:35:27 GMT,
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: On Thu, 18 May 2000 14:34:50 +1000,
>: Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: >
>: >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>: >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>: >> On Thu, 18 May 2000 02:03:23 +1000,
>: >> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: >> >
>: >> >> http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623637730
>: >> >> http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623940112
>: >> >
>: >> >I'm afraid I can't see any lies there. Perhaps you'd care to post the
>: >> >specific parts you're referring to ?
>: >>
>: >> I already did at
>: >>
>: >> http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=624137505
>: >>
>: >> To which he never responded.
>: >
>: >Presumably you refer to the "I have seen a lot of BSODs in my time, and in
>: >every single
>: >instance, [...]" quote ?
>: >
>
>: Yes, and then he in a followup he changed his story from "every single
>: instance" to "most". I guess you didn't finish reading the whole
>: thing.
>
>*sigh* I didn't "change" anything.
>
>Perry, please try to read my posts more carefully. I said "every single
>instance" in the cases of BSODs __I__ had to deal with.
"I have seen a lot of BSODs in my time, and in every single instance..."
>I said "most" in
>the cases of BSODs that happen in general.
"most of the problems that I've encountered, and witnessed"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert: COMNA's new official punching bag... (was Re: Things Linux
can't do!)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 14:14:44 GMT
On 19 May 2000 02:45:36 GMT,
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Uh, you haven't posted a _SINGLE_ URL since you started babbling into
>COMNA.
Sure he did:
http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=625244728
Your not coming down with Althiemer's, are you??? Your memory seems to
really suck.
------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 10:11:04 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Under RH6.1, simply type "sol" in your nearest xterm. No, the cards don't
> wink at you ;-)
>
Better yet, try pysol (available for winders too).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 14:15:13 GMT
On 19 May 2000 02:14:30 GMT,
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Raul Valero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: > >: >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 :-)
>
>When I said "Do you still wish to debate with me?", I was responding to
>Charlie's claim that I have never used Linux, and therefore, I have no
>right to debate its merits.
If someone used WinNT 3.5 four years ago, would he have a right to
debate the merits to debate W2K?? Please.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 14:39:38 +0000
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> I found the above funny. One thing computer-wise that Linux can't do to my
> knowledge is config a mouse driver for lefty operation. I could be wrong.
> If I'm wrong, it's no problem as I leave the mouse config alone and leave
> it righty while I use it lefty. I do it that way for righty-compliance. I
> would sooner add a toggle switch to a mouse than fuck with a mouse driver
> config.
>
In KDE, go to settings, input devices, mouse.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Lies, damn lies and statistics
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 14:37:18 GMT
On Fri, 19 May 2000 11:25:42 +0200,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Make of this as you will:
>
> http://www.securityfocus.com/frames/?content=/vdb/stats.html
>
Also:
http://securityportal.com/direct.cgi?/cover/coverstory20000117.html
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: 19 May 2000 09:41:08 -0500
In article <8g2p0m$gso$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>P.S.: Updatedb can also get kinda annoying when it gets to your newsspool.
>>> Especially when you don't expire news, and have directories with
>>> 100,000+ files...... Time to go Reiserfs ;-)
>
>>Or add it to EXCLUDE in /etc/updatedb.conf, or the -e list on
>>the command line in the cron job.
>
>That would cure updatedb, but sorting news into that sort of directory
>can also get kinda slow (when you see 170% system time on a Dual Pentium,
>you know you should be thinking about changes) ;-)
Sure - whenever you create a new file it has to traverse the whole
directory to see if the name already exists, then lock things
for a while during the insert. Not many filesystems are graceful
about that and Reiserfs does look like an interesting alternative.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 14:52:13 +0000
Sam wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May 2000 03:08:54 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I got your picture but your picture is miles from the truth.
> >Go spend just $45 of your hard earned cash and get a copy of Suse 6.4,
> >install it, then come back here and repeat those words you've just said!
>
> Buy ?
>
> $45 ?
>
> It's supposed to be free (worth ever cent)
Free as in free speech, not free lunch. Besides, you're paying for the
convenience
of not downloading several hundred meg of RPM's
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Raul Valero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 14:53:01 GMT
> Care to make an estimate of the difference you have to spend on RAM
> and video card acceleration today to get equal performance (X vs MS
> or whatever)? Now do the same comparison after adding remote
> capability to the other system.
Not every home user does need that.
------------------------------
From: "Raul Valero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 14:54:30 GMT
> >Office 95 in 16Mb 486 - I wouldn't load Navigator in twm on that and
expect
> '95 in 16M? Puleeeze.
Hmmm, let's say that Windows 95 boots on a 16MB machine, and can even run
Office 95, but in any case runs it well ...
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 19 May 2000 14:58:06 GMT
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On 19 May 2000 02:35:27 GMT,
: Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >: instance" to "most". I guess you didn't finish reading the whole
: >: thing.
: >
: >*sigh* I didn't "change" anything.
: >
: >Perry, please try to read my posts more carefully. I said "every single
: >instance" in the cases of BSODs __I__ had to deal with.
: "I have seen a lot of BSODs in my time, and in every single instance..."
: >I said "most" in
: >the cases of BSODs that happen in general.
: "most of the problems that I've encountered, and witnessed"
*sigh* Okay Perry. Fine. You win. You're so much better than me. You
should go out and celebrate your USENET victory, because YOU ARE SOOOOOOO
SMART!
</SARCASM>
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 19 May 2000 09:56:27 -0500
In article <8g31si$6ri$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>/opt is for independent packages. But there is a new fsstd coming up.
Oh good - we didn't have quite enough standard layouts already...
Are they finally going to abstract it out to a centralized
local configuration setting that controls where things land
when installed or do we have to look forward to another decade
of revisions whenever some committee feels like meeting?
>: feeling that his choice is more "logical." However, the benefits for
>: having a common directory structure would be large. In particular, people
>
>There is one.
More like 20 - and they still don't correctly address issues of
having local copies AND (perhaps multiple) network-mounted directories
of the same thing, or things where the config files should be
network-shared but not the binaries or vice-versa.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: HP-UX vs. Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 14:54:03 GMT
On 18 May 2000 16:49:29 -0600,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) writes:
>
>> On 18 May 2000 13:43:59 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Ben Chauss� <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> 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 ????
>> >
>> >About the only thing HPUX is going to give you that Linux can't is
>> >obscurity (which can be a good defense against script kiddies).
>>
>>
>> HP 9000 V-Class servers running HP-UX scale up to 128 processors and
>> 128GB of memory.
>>
>> http://www.unixsolutions.hp.com/products/servers/vclass/overview/index.html
>>
>> Linux can't do that. Nonetheless, if he needed that much power in a
>> single machine, I'd recommend he go with a Sun. If a PC farm will do
>> I'd recommend either Linux or BSD.
>
>That's a foregone conclusion;
For you, I, and others in the NG yes, but not all who read this NG. I
didn't want visitors to this news group to get the impression that
Linux user don't recognize that UNIX can do some things Linux can't
do.
>anyone even considering Linux on a
>128-way (or even 32-way) SMP box should have their head examined. :)
Wouldn't it be a bit more cost effective to simply fire the guy? :)
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: 19 May 2000 15:01:58 GMT
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > : "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
: > : > I find your praise of a person like Charlie most disturbing. If you
: > : > really think that a person who says little more than "If you don't use
: > : > Linux, then fuck you!" is an ideal advocate, I'd hate to experience your
: > : > definition of a zealot.
: > : You basically say the same 'FU' statement to all of us Linux users, no matter
: > : how sophisticated you think your vocabulary is.....you haven't fooled me as to
: > : what the real meaning/demeaning content of your statements are.
: > And exactly how do I do this? By showing the claims of others to be
: > baloney? This is not saying "FU". This is saying "you're wrong".
: Youve actually never 'shown' that. You've typed things that are your
: opinions---and thats about it.
Actually, all I've ever tried to do is get people to prove their claims,
which they seem incapable of doing.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
Date: 19 May 2000 15:06:17 GMT
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > : > "...it's quite possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees."
: > : No. This is an untrue statement.
: > No it isn't. If you knew half as much as you claim to, you'd know that
: > what I'm saying has, and does happen (though the frequency of such
: > occurrences are small).
: I know exactly as much as I claim to, and the above can also happen
: under NetBSD. (though the frequency of such occurences is small)
Funny you mention that. It actually did happen to me under NetBSD 1.3.
It didn't like my Voodoo3 2000 PCI, apparently. v1.4.1 seems to work just
fine now.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
