Linux-Advocacy Digest #177, Volume #27 Mon, 19 Jun 00 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
M$ is evil - WAS: Re: So where ARE all of these Linux users? (billy ball)
Re: Synthetic Speach on Linux (billy ball)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 18 Jun 2000 23:15:58 -0500
In article <Y1S25.10265$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >> You are missing the fact that standards evolve to meet users
>> >> needs
>> >
>> >Slowly. And poorly.
>>
>> You've demonstrated how much you know about this.
>
>Haven't I, though? :D <-- shit eating grin, there
Yes, it is extremely hard to support such a claim when you
think the RFC's stopped in the 700's.
>> Civilization is built on standards and agreements. Ignoring
>> them leads to war and destruction.
>
>I disagree. Competition is *good*. Progress is *good*; nailing
>everything down and disallowing change would be bad.
Of course - it is establishing standard wire protocols that
allows multiple innovative implementations to coexist and
progress independently. Relying on single-vendor proprietary
protocols is what keeps you from ever changing and eliminates
competition.
>By the way, where did "agreements" get into it? Did MS "agree"
>to these standards you are trying to force down their throat- and
>indeed, did *I* agree to them? You are telling me that *I*
>should be forced to use these things, too.
If they want to claim internet interoperability they should be
required to meet the standards. And note that no one except
MS is forcing anyone to use anything. They do, by making
it an integral part of the OS, claiming it can't be removed.
[snip]
>You can argue that most Unix software is 'incorrect'
>because it does not adhere to POSIX.1 and never
>did. But I bet you won't. :D
That argument would be the same as arguing that
current windows software is incorrect because it
does not adhere to the windows 1 spec. Neither
is correct, nor is the claim that the specs haven't
changed.
>[snip]
>> >This is fine if you have someone with basic programming
>> >skills around to do this stuff. But most don't.
>>
>> Then why is some non-portable flavor of basic getting embedded
>> in everything from MS?
>
>Because some do. Still, they don't make it so you *need*
>visual basic for applications for everyday stuff.
Nor do you need to do shell scripting for everday stuff
on current Linux distributions.
>> Not if it saves you a lot of work thereafter and lets you
>> do something else.
>
>It's not likely to do that very often, though, given that you have
>to get the sysadmin to write you a litle script for
>everything.
Like?
>[snip]
>> Plus
>> you can build and test each part of the process individually
>> interacting by hand exactly the same way it will run when scripted.
>> With GUI's it is often difficult to separate the predictable
>> parts from the context and the interactive parts and any sort
>> of scripting has to be done in a completely different way than
>> the interactive way.
>
>This isn't actually true in principle- Apple has a scripting
>engine that can record your action and make a script.
How does it separate the context-sensitive parts of the action
(like chosing a filename that may be different next time) from
the fixed parts like starting a program whose name will always
be the same?
>[snip]
>>
>> Yes, when unix was designed, people mostly used computers
>> for repeated tasks. Some still do.
>
>for "repeated tasks"?
>
>I'm not at all sure what you mean by this.
Timed operations, file transfers, generating charts from data,
and assorted other things that take no or minimal human
interaction. Anything that can be completely scripted gains
nothing from GUI operation.
>[snip]
>> >I see. Why are you so fond of standards bodies?
>>
>> Bad experiences with companies with the attitude of
>> 'we don't follow standards, we set them'. It hasn't
>> always been Microsoft, but it has always been bad
>> in the long run.
>
>What bad experiences in particular?
I've already covered some with Microsoft. A similar situation
with AT&T back in the days before TCP was that their uucp
(dial-up file transfer program) only understood their own
modems and really only worked correctly with the type that
had a separate serial port controlling a dialer. It sort-of
worked with the recently introduced smartmodems where the
dialing commands went to the same device, but you had to
lock carrier detect up on the modem or it wouldn't open
it to send the dial commands. The problem then was that you
couldn't tell when the call dropped. The funny part was that
they started making their own smartmodems that also didn't
work with uucp - but their salespeople didn't understand the
problem. I think I sent about $30,000 worth back at one point.
It took a much larger pending contract for satellite services
to get their attention and get them to add tokens in the
dialing script to allow talking to a port before the CD line
was active (the OS already allowed it, but uucp didn't do it).
I was also slightly involved with some IBM equipment where
it was even more difficult to other vendors' devices but
I have forgotten most of the quirks. We ended up using
kermit across serial ports as a scheduled file transfer
mechanism with a unix box controlling the connections.
>[snip]
>>
>> Both are design choices
>
>I doubt the bugs were a design choice. It's not
>like telnet doesnt' look bad next to Windows,
>even when it's working properly.
Refusing to update the telnet to one that actually works is
a choice. If you ever try to do anything with
windows over a low bandwidth connection, you would find
that telnet looks very good by comparison.
>> made to make competitors
>> correctly working products appear deficient.
>
>Since this is done by making your product better
>than theirs, this would seem like a good thing to me.
No, it is done by doing things differently, not better.
>But bugs in telnet make MS, not Unix, look bad.
People only know that after they have a working
version. Most people don't have a working version,
they have the one MS bundled.
>> They
>> are the same and not something I want to buy, yet
>> they are bundled into things that may be unavoidable
>> for other reasons.
>
>Bundling is perfectly ordinary, and arguing that *no-one*
>should be able to get a package just because you don't
>want it is, well, not very neighborly.
It is not perfectly ordinary to bundle something that
breaks your competitors products.
>[snip]
>> If you continue to define important as only working correctly
>> in an all-MS environment.
>
>Well, no, define important as "relevant to the real problems
>of real users" in this context.
>
>Interoperability may be, but often isn't, relevant. Standards
>never are; they are at most a means to an end.
It may not be important to you today. However in any non-trivial
setup, choosing anything that uses a non-standard protocol will
make it almost impossible to ever change since you will have
to replace all components at once to replace it. If you are
close to retiring, I suppose you can leave that as someone else's
problem. The 'end' that standards provide is interoperability
among components so you are always free to replace any one
with the current best without disrupting operation with the existing
base.
>[snip]
>> The government is a very large customer. And now very much
>> vendor-locked.
>
>Well, I quesiton how 'vendor locked' something as big and diverse
>as the govermnet *can* be.
The bigger you are, the harder it is to change something that does
not follow standards.
>But it's hardly the same as selling "on the promise of something
>that wasn't usable".
Was posix a requirement? Was the implementation usable?
>You've got to establish that the government agencies though
>they could run Unix software on NT, or something like that.
OK, how do you explain the requirement for posix conformance
if you don't think it was to be able to run existing software
or to be able to move software from one platform to another?
Did they get it?
>[snip]
>> >It still doesn't give you X. If you write an app that emits an X-protocol
>> >stream you will not run on NT's POSIX system because it includes
>> >*only* what is in the minimum POSIX standards, and no more.
>>
>> It is not supposed to give you X.
>
>Not "supposed to"?
>
>> It is supposed to give you the
>> ability to compile and link to the X library.
>
>Only C, not POSIX, is required for this.
Except that you have to be able to connect your I/O stream
to the right place.
>> X does not have much to do with unix. Unix provides the
>> facilities for X to work.
>
>X is Unix's graphics layer. It's very important to large
>categories of applications. True, in principle you can
>run X on other systems. But in principle you can run
>Win32 GDI on other systems, too. It's just an API,
>anyone could implemented it.
>
>The problem is that on Unix, X is what you get. On
>Windows, the GDI is what you get.
No, X does not have much to do with unix. It is an
application program facility on the client (program)
side, and a device specific facility on the server
(display) side which may not even be running an OS.
Unix just provides the socket and shared memory
mechanisms that are normally used to connect them.
>[snip]
>> >Indeed. But while MS has implemented the minimum they could
>> >(and still call it POSIX), even had they implemented every
>> >POSIX standard, it still would not be enough. You still don't
>> >have X that way, nor any widget set.
>>
>> Nor do you need to.
>
>You certainly do need such a thing, for a great many
>apps. You don't need X *per se*, but you need some
>equavent.
I mean you don't need a new one, and you don't need a bundled
one. The X protocol is done, several widget sets are done
and they certainly don't need to be done in OS-flavored ways.
>> The concept of code portability seems
>> to have escaped you completely. Remember the 'P' in
>> posix? If it really meant what it said, you don't need
>> to specify anything else - you just copy in the source
>> you already have and recompile.
>
>That's pretty much never realistic.
Yes it has, at least since SysVr4 merged in BSD networking
and it wasn't all that bad even before. If you don't use
the sysv-specific STREAMS code you can compile most things
across most current flavors of unix and a lot would probably
work on OS/2. The differences that exist are pretty well
known, so tools like autoconf can be used to deal even with
the older more diverse variations.
>[snip]
>Standards often leave things unspecified so that an
>implementor can do it 'the easy way'.
Yes, but the assumption is that the implementation will
work.
>[snip]
>> >Well, that'll happen with anybody's system from time to time.
>> >If I were using Unix, I would find it difficult to integrate non
>> >Unix stuff of any description, not just Windows.
>>
>> It is not difficult at all to integrate anything that follows
>> protocol standards correctly regardless of the OS.
>
>IE, Unix stuff.
No, cross-platform, among the platforms that follow standards.
>The point I keep on hammering on here is that
>Unix stuff is stil Unix stuff, even when standardized.
And you are wrong every time.
>Standardization is not a formula for interoperability;
>it isn't because no-one else is obliged to follow the
>standards.
*Following* standards is the formula for interoperability.
Doing otherwise is the formula for never being able to
change a component again.
>Think of it this way. C++ is standardized. So should
>(compliant) C++ program be accepted by a FORTRAN
>compiler? How about a Java compiler?
I don't see any relationship here. The issue is equivalent to
whether you should be able to transparently replace one vendor's
C++ compiler with one that you think is better without having
anything break as a result, or whether you should be able to compile
java to bytecode on one machine and run it on a different JVM.
MS doesn't seem to think you should.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
Subject: M$ is evil - WAS: Re: So where ARE all of these Linux users?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 04:19:54 GMT
On 19 Jun 2000 02:36:12 GMT, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:> : So where are all of these folks?
>:>
>:> In every important business in the world, for starters. Including
>:> Microsoft.
>
>: Is Microsoft an important business?
>
>I guess it depends how you define "business," but assuming Microsoft
>can be considered at least in part a business, not merely a criminal
>organization, its market capitalization and the prominence of several
>of its products do qualified it as being quite important.
>
very good... the truth is that M$ is an evil company with evil
leadership... why else would a billion-dollar company have to resort to
exploiting handicapped children in its TV advertising in order to attempt
to sway public opinion?
it's also obvious that few of M$ evil barons subscribe to the gospel of
wealth - their percentage of return to society doesn't even come close to
1/1000th of that donated by former evil barons, such as Vanderbilt,
Carnegie, Rockefeller and so on...
the meglomania of the M$ leadership as the company continues to downslide
on the polls of public opinion continues to become more obvious (note the
rantings of Gates and Ballmer following M$'s being declared a monopoly)...
particularly disgusting was Paul Allen's plea to the federal judge
concerning the potential value of his 'holdings' in the wake of a
government breakup...
what i find interesting is that M$ continues to sh*t on its customers and
the consumer, while still spouting its self-induced hype that the company
'innovates'... M$ hasn't innovated anything, but merely buys, acquires, or
extinguishes competing technologies...
M$ is not a software company, but an evil business which will now have to
face up to its own music... Gates painted himself into a corner, and it is
through his foibles and disfunctional personality that his evil spawn is
now in the situation it faces... blame no one else, not M$ competitors,
not the federal government, not the states, not the thousands of
pissed-off consumers, not the current president, and not Janet Reno...
M$ has itself to blame... and i love watching it being gutted, then
dancing around the fire, tied to a pole, with the wolves snapping at its
entrails...
i wish M$ a slow and lingering death in any vertical or horizontal
industry it has chosen to foul...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
Subject: Re: Synthetic Speach on Linux
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 04:21:02 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:34:45 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It was the Sun, 18 Jun 2000 12:07:25 -0700...
>...and Daniel Mendyke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Several years ago a friend showed me an application
>> running on his Amiga that would read a standard
>> text file and 'attempt' to read it over the systems
>> speakers. (Naturally it sounded like a mechanical
>> computer)
>>
>> Is there such a program for Linux?
>
>Was the program you mean called "say"?
>
>It has been *ported* to Linux; you can use the exact same program. Say
>used to be include in the download package of a popular little text
>editor (Gnotepad+?).
the best (IMHO) is the festival system from Univ. of Edinburgh
>
>mawa
>--
>I made my way through the computer controlled monorail, car by car,
>cruising for sentient beings.
> -- Mark Leyner, My Cousin, My Gastroenterologist
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:23:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Raymond N Shwake wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
>
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote on Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:47:35 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> wrote on 15 Jun 2000 10:56:18 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >[snip for brevity]
>
> >>> >you still nead 20 UNIX boxes just to keep up with the
> >>> >servor. You can save the money you would spend on the 20 UNIX boxes
> >>> >(and the days it would take just to figure how to make it shuffall
> >>> >text and send it to Windos) just by doing everyting on
> >>> >the Windos 2000 server.
> >>>
> >>> "The"?
> >>>
> >>> Oh yeah, 1 Win2K server = 20 Solaris boxes.
> >>
> >>He got the ratio reversed.
> >>
> >> 20 Lose2K servers = 1 Solaris box.
>
> >This wouldn't surprise me overly much.
>
> >Mind you, those E10000s are fairly large boxes..... :-) :-)
>
> But one only needs to go with a UE 10000 if one's needs for CPU cycles
> and I/O are substantial. IBM and HP have smaller and less costly boxes that'll
> do almost as much. And before the Wintel folks start spouting off about
LoseDows has EXCELLANT cost/performance ratio... until you unpack the
machine from the box.
At the end of one year, you learn that the cost of operating a LoseDows
is very high compared to Unix.
Example: My last position at EDS, a team of only 30 people, all in
one office, provided ALL break/fix services for EVERY Unix workstation
and most servers for ALL of GM, across the entire country, with an
additional two (very low-level) on-site techs at each site to do
co-ordination of hardware repairs, etc (6 AM - 6 PM coverage; one
man early, one man late).
I'm talking about sites with literally HUNDREDS of workstations.
Doing that with windows, you would need a 20-man support staff
AT EVERY SINGLE SITE!
> "cost/performance", there's nothing that says one can't run UNIX (Solaris or
> UnixWare) on high-end Intel servers (e.g. IBM Netfinity, Dell PowerEdge, etc.).
> Choice is just one more thing UNIX and Linux give you that Windows doesn't.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:26:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> > "Colin R. Day" wrote:
> > >
> > > JEDIDIAH wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:52:03 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:13:22 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>and tell you exactly hoe many text files I have. Now can anyone tell me
> > > > >>how to do that under Windows?
> > > > >
> > > > >Start - Search (or Find) - Files - *.txt ?
> > > >
> > > > Nope, that will just tell you how many files you have
> > > > that end it .txt.
> > >
> > > What, a text file whose name doesn't end in "*.txt"? You'll
> > > confuse him, Jedi.
> > >
> > > BTW would you count *.ini and *.bat files as test files?
>
> oops, should be text files.
>
> >
> >
> > text files?
> >
> > are they HUMAN READABLE?
>
> *.bat files are somewhat like shell scripts, and as far as I
> can tell, *.ini files are like config files. They are human readable,
> and they are not binaries.
It was a rhetorical question, Colin...
>
> Colin Day
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:27:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:21:46 -0400, "Colin R. Day"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >What, a text file whose name doesn't end in "*.txt"? You'll
> >confuse him, Jedi.
>
> Make a little list of all your favorite file extensions.
That's no guarantee of anything.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:29:04 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:29:10 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >you see...unix's 'file' command actuall OPENS THE FILE AND READS IT to
> >determine what kind of file it actually is
>
> Why not just name your text files .txt and avoid all that trouble? I
> can hardly believe a quick file search is faster than opening each and
> every file on your hard drive to see if it's a text file or not.
relying upon extensions to indicate file contents is not a reliable
method
However, you DO have the option of doing that as well:
$ du -a / | grep [your_extension_here] | wc -l
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:32:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:29:10 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >you see...unix's 'file' command actuall OPENS THE FILE AND READS IT to
> >determine what kind of file it actually is
>
> Why not just name your text files .txt and avoid all that trouble? I
> can hardly believe a quick file search is faster than opening each and
> every file on your hard drive to see if it's a text file or not.
Why limit yourself in such a way.
Hint: ONLY LOSE-DOWS ties file types to a particular extension.
In fact, for years, the only "extensions" on Unix systems were
.h header files for C programs
.c C program source
.o object files (output of the C compiler before linking)
tar files are suffixed with .tar by convention, not force.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:32:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:27:19 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >> find / grep -v '^/dev/.*' | xargs file | grep -c text
> >
> >Ummmm, you forgot to count the output lines:
> >
> >find / grep -v '^/dev/.*' | xargs file | grep -c text | wc
>
> Wow! that's so much easier than just naming your extensive collection
> of text files *.txt and using Start - Find - *.txt
do you rename your .ini files to .txt?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:34:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2:1 wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> >
> > 2:1 wrote:
> > >
> > > Mingus wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:32:20 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >As for me, I'll stick with my arcane 1970s, useless, uncool, not shiny
> > > > >commandline, and spend all day `shuffalling text fials'.
> > > >
> > > > That's terribly exciting... just how many text files do you have?
> > >
> > > lots.
> > >
> > > In fact tonight, I'll remember to do a
> > >
> > > find / grep -v '^/dev/.*' | xargs file | grep -c text
> >
> > Ummmm, you forgot to count the output lines:
> >
> > find / grep -v '^/dev/.*' | xargs file | grep -c text | wc
> >
>
> Man grep, man.
>
> grep -c prints out a _count_ of the number of matched lines.
whoops! how did that -c get in there?
find / grep -v '^/dev/.*' | xargs file | grep text | wc
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
> http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
>
> remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
> it.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:36:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 12:04:45 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> >> As long as Rex Ballard spreads lies about the number of Linux users,
> >
> >prove it.
>
> Typically the burden of proof lies on the person making the outrageous
> claim.
In this case, that person would be you.
Prove your assertion about Rex.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
