Linux-Advocacy Digest #352, Volume #27 Mon, 26 Jun 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Tholenbot needs re-programming ("Asmodius")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Charles Philip
Chan)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why Linux should be #1 choice for students! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Microsoft and General Stupidity (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: OS's ... (Jeff Szarka)
Re: OS's ... (Jeff Szarka)
Re: MS Windows WM
Re: OS's ... (Jeff Szarka)
Re: OS's ... (Jeff Szarka)
Re: slashdot (Jeff Szarka)
Re: OS's ...
Re: slashdot (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Microsoft and General Stupidity (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: slashdot (Jeff Szarka)
Re: OS's ... (abraxas)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: slashdot (Greg Yantz)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! ("2 + 2")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Asmodius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Tholenbot needs re-programming
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:21:10 GMT
Some stupid Bot imitating somebody, wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Asmodius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"tholenbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> >
> >> Open your eyes.
>
> Unnecessary.
Interesting programming flaw: The stupid Bot responds to
something I quoted.
Playing with this inferior piece of garbage should be fun.
> >Stupid bot.
>
> Typical invective.
Obviously one your program is too defective to conjure up.
Your kind needs to be de-compiled and wiped.
> >Your algorithms need modification.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
You're doing a nice job of proving it for me.
Stupid turkey-brain communist.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 15:58:49 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In <8j3suj$2ecg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>In article <tN655.21959$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>MS's technology does not do this; anyone can provide
>>authentication.
>
>No, they appear to have made it impossible to provide
>authentication with standard kerberos while interoperating
>with an MS domain.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
While not a Finding of Fact, the kerberos concern is in the court record
and I have confirmed with Novell that it is unable to modify Zenworks
so that it can support Windows200 Server. So its more of the same from
Microsoft.
An MS split would obviously be bad for Windows 2000, but I do not believe
the stock market has factored in much revenue for Windows 2000. That is
because it replaces the NT and Win95/98 revenue stream and does not
represent new business, since IA64 is a likely bust.
An MS split - voluntary or not - does represent new revenue potential.
Microsoft Office on Linux and kick butt Java VM on Windows are but two.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
From: Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 26 Jun 2000 15:22:44 +0500
>>>>> "mark" == mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I thought that the CD wasn't being distributed in many cases
> now? Just the hdd copy. Suppose that means Win2k users will
> have to try fixing their Win2k using ftp or something?
No, the vendor just waste your disk space with a directory of all the
DLL's.
Charles
------------------------------
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:01:25 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin R. Day) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Now Linux has RPM files, an invention to partially help with
>> installations. However, the effect of requiring other packages is a
>> real pain in the neck
>
>If you buy a distribution, it should have all of the required packages.
What about extra packages not in a distribution?
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:04:55 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> No, a Windows upgrade applied to your old system files will
> merely leave you with a remarkably more unstable system (even
> by windos standards) and quite possibly lead to total data loss.
Really? That's not been my experience.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:07:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The structure of Unix makes such extremism unecessary.
Then why did I find menus broken and a configuration tool broken after the
upgrade, if the structure of Unix makes such extremism unnecessary? I fixed
it by a complete reinstall. Oh, I suppose I could try to figure out what
went wrong, but there was nothing I wanted on the system, so the easiest
thing was to reinstall.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Linux should be #1 choice for students!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:09:45 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I find vi excellent. Mine's not in caps, though - maybe that's not
>significant in NT - can NT tell the difference?
vi was old when I started. I moved onto EDIT/EDT, then LSE. Finally I moved
to Visual C++'s editor (a simplification but so much easier to remember
what did what) then back to complexity with Borland Delphi's IDE.
Now I used vim (to clean toilets?) and its a lot better but the old vi is
still lurking beneath the surface.
Pete
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft and General Stupidity
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:07:12 -0400
On 25 Jun 2000 23:11:25 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook) wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 03:48:32 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>This is exactly why I can't take Linux users seriously.
>
>Well, this is why I don't take *you* too seriously; you seem to believe
>c.o.l.a represents the Linux community, and I'm sure it serves your purposes
>(whatever those are) to do so. Since this is the only Linux newsgroup you
>read, I suppose that shouldn't be too suprising.
I would say I have a fair amount of expose to Linux. I read slashdot,
I read this group sometimes, I frequent IRC channels that include many
Linux users, I have friends who try Linux, etc. The common link tends
to be hate for Microsoft.
>I doubt c.o.l.a accounts for even 1% of the community, and the sampling that
>one gets here is highly unrepresentative. Most Linux people that I know
>don't take this newsgroup seriously if they've ever read it at all. Like a
>lot of advocacy groups, it's meant to keep junk out of the useful newsgroups.
I don't think that's the problem though. Anytime the word Linux is
mentioned it becomes a flame fest. Someone tries to defend Windows a
little bit and the Linux advocate spazes out.
>Myself, I don't think c.o.l.a is all that bad compared to say
>rec.audio.opinion, where sheer nastiness is almost the rule and people *do*
>mean it personally.
>
>Dave Cook
I don't know... maybe it's not as bad as it seems. It's just every
time I get the opinion that it's not as bad after all someone makes
sure to reinforce it.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:20:30 -0500
MK wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:26:05 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> >is my argument. If you go out of your way to change the circumstances I
> >> >am talking about, you are arguing around the problem, and not facing the
> >> >real situation I am trying to show you. Even if I purchased a machine a
> >> >year or more ago with a formatted/unformatted/non-loaded drive I would
> >> >have had to pay MS for the priveledge of buying a computer.
> >>
> >> No you would not. You could have found vendors selling you PC without
> >> OS installed, couldn't you?
> >
> >Dell/Gateway/Micron/etc. were selling PCs with formatted hard drives,
> >but you still had to pay the MS tax. That is a fact. You can step
> >around it all you want, but it is a fact.
>
> And other vendors, esp. smaller ones did not. In fact, I have never had problem
> buying bare PC without paying "MS tax". That is a fact, too and you can step
> around it all you want, but it is a fact.
>
> >They themselves did not like
> >it, but it was strongarmed by MS so that they (MS) would always get
> >paid, for every machine said companies were selling.
>
> I'd say that they were rather happy to get the discount and ignore
> loss of really marginal number of customers.
>
> MK
>
> ---
>
> Involuntary redistribution is theft in coating of hypocrisy.
OK, see my previous post. I've admitted that I don't know shit. This
way I can bow out of the conversation and not have to deal with this
continous line of crap.
As before: If you break the law (as MS did) you will be punished (as MS
is). You can talk your way around it all you want, but the said OEMs
were no happier with the situation than I.
Now, as for my first paragraph (and previous posting). For all
Wintrolls: You are right, I'm an idiot. Even though I do my job (and
apparently well for the lack of complaints I've had lately) as a network
administrator and keep all machines running well I don't know shit. I'm
just as stupid as all the little Wintrolls say I am.
As before, let the witch-hunt begin. I'd much rather burn at the stake
than listen to another Windows roolz, Linux droolz thread of idiocy.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:25:28 -0400
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:24:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>> Take it to MS advocacy. The 1995 Unixes could still beat w2k and
>>> millenium.
>
> Actually, in '95 any of the Unix could go toe to toe with NT5
> on the desktop. The only problems on the Unix side would be
> lack of graphics design or "running everything".
Which office packages existed for UNIX in 1995?
Which games existed for UNIX in 1995?
How was the hardware support for UNIX in 1995?
How good were the GUI's? CDE? Please.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:26:47 -0400
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:29:54 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I( was talking about evolution as well. MS still has a long way to
>go.The ADS can be quite a headache judging by the problems the MS guys
>at the places I work are going though! The Unix boxes have wheather all
>the "storms" quite nicely. W2K? hardly.
I've had pretty much no problems with AD. Considering I just installed
it and played with it till it worked I would expect I had more trouble
than most.
It works very well...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: MS Windows WM
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:32:01 GMT
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:55:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>But I DID give an example. How many do I need to qualify?
>
>Being a recent refugee from the evil empire, I've gotten spoiled by
>little things like that drag'n'drop stuff. I've had a couple different
That's not a part of the desktop, strictly speaking. That's
more of an OS level protocol. GNOME and KDE both support
such things. Gnome even supports DnD between legacy Motif
applications.
[deletia]
As far as 'complaints' go, those were more gripes with particular
application preferences.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:29:56 -0400
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:25:13 GMT, "Pedro Iglesias"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I was just trying to share some thoughts, if you do not like them, do not
>answer them
>and if you do, at least be a little polite. I am probably working with
>computers before
>you were born ... anyway, arguing that is stupid.
Welcome to the club... These people don't care what anyone thinks...
They're just Microsoft ver 2.0. I mean really... doesn't the whole "WE
WANT DESKTOP DOMINACNCE NOW!" remind you of someone?
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:30:36 -0400
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:07:15 -0400, name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> When Word won Wordperfect, it was not the dominant one, so it
>> won 'cause it was better. Besides, it mind me bollocks if Microsoft
>> split or not, Windows will be the dominant OS for a while. Tell me
>> a company that does not try to beat the rivals, come on.
>>
>
>Oh, you're a really bright one aren't you. Because Word wasn't dominant,
>it is now because it was better. You might want to stop posting here
>until you gain some semblance of intelligence. Unless you like being called
>a complete moron or an idiot.
Linux advocacy...
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: slashdot
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:32:13 -0400
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:09:55 -0400, name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don' think Slashdot is as concerned about their site being up 24/7 as
>say maybe
>MS is with Hotmail. Your point is moot(sp?).
So it's all right as long as you don't care about your site being up
24/7 ?
If someone was to believe all he claims about Microsoft I could easily
justify them by saying "Well you know... Microsoft really doesn't care
so... it's alright"
That doesn't make sense to me.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:37:25 GMT
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:25:28 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:24:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>>> Take it to MS advocacy. The 1995 Unixes could still beat w2k and
>>>> millenium.
>>
>> Actually, in '95 any of the Unix could go toe to toe with NT5
>> on the desktop. The only problems on the Unix side would be
>> lack of graphics design or "running everything".
>
>
>Which office packages existed for UNIX in 1995?
That's separate issue entirely.
>
>Which games existed for UNIX in 1995?
>
>How was the hardware support for UNIX in 1995?
>
>How good were the GUI's? CDE? Please.
It has all the necessary infastructure. The only thing missing
was better graphics design to woo superficial people such as
yourself.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: slashdot
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:35:35 -0400
On 26 Jun 2000 11:09:14 GMT, "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: I just think it's funny. The point is supposed to be Linux is so much
>: better than NT right?
>
>NT is not in the same class as Linux or any Unix-like OS as a server
>OS. That point is not in serious dispute, even by Microsoft, which
>runs crucial parts of its business on another Unix-like OS rather than
>NT.
So it's clear that Linux is no better a web server than NT.
Administratoin and management decide how well software works.
>: I remember when the Win2k test site was DoS-ed.
>: The suggestion at the time was that Win2k sucked because of it..
>
>People asserted this because the machine itself gave indications of
>failure (as opposed to merely being unreachable due to upstream
>network problems).
>
>And while W2K does suck, it doesn't suck for that reason. Any naked
>OS trying to perform multiple tasks without being behind a proper
>firewall would have trouble.
Why does Win2k "suck"? Oh yea... because it's not Linux.
>But Linux can be locked down tightly enough to function as a very
>adequate firewall,* and competently administered machines behind the
>firewall should not experience any major problems. Linux has been
>used in production Web sites since before the Internet was on
>Microsoft's radar. We know how to do this job right. We can't
>prevent upstream network outages, which is the most likely explanation
>for the ./ and Freshmeat problems. But we can prevent most problems
>on our own servers before they occur, and fix those that do occur,
>from anywhere in the world, in minutes - without rebooting.
>
>
>: I
>: don't really care why slashdot is down... It's the irony of it I
>: enjoy.
>
>Yeah. Why let facts get in the way of a good intellectual jerkoff
>session? You're a Wintroll after all. That would completely ruin
>your reputation. :)
>
>
>Joe
You don't see the point... There is no reason why slashdot should be
down.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft and General Stupidity
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:37:14 -0500
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> On 25 Jun 2000 23:11:25 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook) wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 03:48:32 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>This is exactly why I can't take Linux users seriously.
> >
> >Well, this is why I don't take *you* too seriously; you seem to believe
> >c.o.l.a represents the Linux community, and I'm sure it serves your purposes
> >(whatever those are) to do so. Since this is the only Linux newsgroup you
> >read, I suppose that shouldn't be too suprising.
>
> I would say I have a fair amount of expose to Linux. I read slashdot,
> I read this group sometimes, I frequent IRC channels that include many
> Linux users, I have friends who try Linux, etc. The common link tends
> to be hate for Microsoft.
>
> >I doubt c.o.l.a accounts for even 1% of the community, and the sampling that
> >one gets here is highly unrepresentative. Most Linux people that I know
> >don't take this newsgroup seriously if they've ever read it at all. Like a
> >lot of advocacy groups, it's meant to keep junk out of the useful newsgroups.
>
> I don't think that's the problem though. Anytime the word Linux is
> mentioned it becomes a flame fest. Someone tries to defend Windows a
> little bit and the Linux advocate spazes out.
>
> >Myself, I don't think c.o.l.a is all that bad compared to say
> >rec.audio.opinion, where sheer nastiness is almost the rule and people *do*
> >mean it personally.
> >
> >Dave Cook
>
> I don't know... maybe it's not as bad as it seems. It's just every
> time I get the opinion that it's not as bad after all someone makes
> sure to reinforce it.
The same thing happens to people that are Linux advocates. If you try
to support anything (operating system or not) someone is going to jump
up and attempt to prove what an idiot you are (in fact proving what an
idiot they are). This is a fact of life. Blaming all of the Linux
community for this is like blamming every Windows user for the fact that
there are rabid Wintrolls screaming at the top of thier lungs
(figuratively) that Linux sucks and anyone that uses it is a piece of
worthless teenage trash that just can't afford to pay for a "real"
operating system.
I've recently accepted that no matter what I say to negate this (even
the truth, *gasp*) it won't change. I therefore am ending most of my
posts with a statement that basically says I know I suck, and I'm a
worthless pile of shit. Therefore, no one can really take anything I
say seriously. This allows me to express my opinion, and negate myself
in one quick action (press the send button). It keeps the freaks from
jumping all over you, and allows you to actually say what you want.
Yes, I am an idiot. Thus far the only person that disagrees is my wife,
and I tell her that's just because she doesn't want to accept that she
screwed up by marrying an idiot.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: slashdot
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:37:34 -0400
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:20:00 -0500, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
>> I don't really care why slashdot is down... It's the irony of it I
>> enjoy.
>
>Unfortunately, there's not much irony to enjoy until you know that it was
>not a power problem, communications problem, hardware problem, application
>problem, load problem, sabotage, etc.
Like I said... it doesn't matter why it was down. I thought Linux was
great at clustering? If you believe Linux is as great as every says
slashdot.org should be run on a p233 with 32MB of ram and never fail.
>You're grasping at straws, Jeff. No amount of problems with Slashdot will
>make Microsoft's products quit sucking.
It has nothing to do with Microsoft besides the obvious point that
Linux advocacy and Linux users are more anti-Microsoft than pro-Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: 26 Jun 2000 20:41:33 GMT
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:25:13 GMT, "Pedro Iglesias"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I was just trying to share some thoughts, if you do not like them, do not
>>answer them
>>and if you do, at least be a little polite. I am probably working with
>>computers before
>>you were born ... anyway, arguing that is stupid.
>
> Welcome to the club... These people don't care what anyone thinks...
> They're just Microsoft ver 2.0. I mean really... doesn't the whole "WE
> WANT DESKTOP DOMINACNCE NOW!" remind you of someone?
Who exactly is saying that, jeff?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:48:35 -0400
mark wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> >Hoobajoob wrote:
> >>
> >> > I know that in the case of a missing DLL, Windows 98 will tell
> >> > you that your program (or one of its components) is missing,
> >> > and might give you the name of the missing DLLs before the
> >> > Fatal Exception Error occurs. Win2K can't be much different,
> >> > unless it automatically knows how to generate the missing DLLs.
> >>
> >> It asks for the Windows 2000 CD. Then the problem goes away.
> >
> >Why should an installed DLL ever disappear?
> >
> >It's inexcusable!
> >
> I thought that the CD wasn't being distributed in many cases now?
> Just the hdd copy. Suppose that means Win2k users will have to
> try fixing their Win2k using ftp or something?
A lot of good that will do if the machine doesn't boot!
>
> --
> Mark - remove any ham to reply.
> "A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
> by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
> by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
--
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.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: slashdot
From: Greg Yantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 26 Jun 2000 16:48:50 -0400
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:20:00 -0500, "Bobby D. Bryant"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Jeff Szarka wrote:
[snip]
> It has nothing to do with Microsoft besides the obvious point that
> Linux advocacy and Linux users are more anti-Microsoft than pro-Linux.
No, those are the only ones you allow yourself to see, or are able to
understand...
-Greg
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:50:18 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 02:23:08 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 20:23:04 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Woofbert wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> >THEY are the ones who go around calling everyone else Nazis.
> >> >And THEY are the ones who propound that the symbolism of an
> >> >act is more important than the act itself.
> >>
> >> The VW Beetle is hardly the symbol of the Nazi regime that you
> >> think it is. If it were, then the Germans themselves would be
> >> uptight about it.
> >>
> >> Whereas, the Stars & Bars is indeed (or was) the official symbol
> >> of the Confederacy.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >They can't have it both ways.
> >> >
> >> >If liberal Democrats they're gonna get all bent out of shape about
> >> >Confederate flags flying over capitols (which the SAME *DEMOCRAT*
> >> >PARTY put there in the first place), then they had better be
> >> >prepared to get the same "guilt by symbolism" shoved down
> >> >their throats as well.
> >>
> >> Are you going to start ranting about the Saturn V next?
> >>
> >
> >Of course not.
> >
> >Just noting that those who use symbolism at every turn (i.e. radical
> >leftists) should be careful of what symbols they indulge in themselves.
>
> A minor bit of subsidized technology is NOT a 'symbol'.
To them, it is.
> >
> >Considering how the hippy-dippy leftists are in love with Volkwagen
> >Beetles, I can, by their own brand of logic, call them a bunch of
> >Hitler-loving Nazis.
>
> [deletia]
>
> --
>
> |||
> / | \
--
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: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Lost Cause Theater!!!
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:49:55 -0400
Darren Winsper wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:45:04 GMT, Oscar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It's simple logic. The simpler something is, the more stable it is.
>> As Linux moves on to support more apps, platforms and stupid users,
>> Linux will become less stable. I promise you that.
>
>I can sit any clueless newbie/moron in front of my machine and they
>will not be able to kill it.
>
>> Note to Linux dudes out there: Remember Macintosh, Amiga, and OS/2?
>> Lots of people thought/knew that those products were better. They got
>> cocky and lost to Billy boy. Also I don't sub the linux forum, I
>> caught this on an NT support forum, if ya wanna flame me, email me.
>
>Apple refused to open up the hardware platform and were overpriced.
>Linux is open. Commodore stood still and were overtaken. Linux is
>advancing at a frightening pace. IBM failed to market OS/2 well enough
>and overpriced it IIRC. Linux is gaining market share despite the lack
>of marketing and is free or cheap, depending on where you get it from.
Good point.
2 + 2
>
>--
>Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
>Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
>DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
>This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
