Linux-Advocacy Digest #561, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 04:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 03:41:49 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 05 Jul 2000
> >> [...]
> >> >Basically, for corporate work.....the desktop PC is DEVOLVING into
> >> >an appliance which is
> >> >
> >> >a) a Word Processor / Spreadsheet / Presentation Tool manager
> >> > (i.e. glorified typewriter) PLUS
> >> >b) small custom input/output front-ends for servers.
> >>
> >> I certainly agree of your general characterization of the business
> >> desktop's role and purpose. What I disagree with is the on-going
> >> fallacy that this is "devolving". The fact is, that has always been the
> >> purpose and use of the PC, and since the PC began fulfilling that role,
> >> there have been frequent and insistent claims that this role is somehow
> >> served best by a special purpose device rather than a general purpose
> >> microcomputer. Yet all actual attempts to migrate away from general
> >
> >Oh..make no mistake. A general purpose microcomputer fits
> >the bill the best... it's just that the actual processing
> >for any tasks more trivial that generating spreadsheets,
> >short documents, and slide shows is best done on something
> >centralized, with the desktop machine merely serving as a
> >highly configurable front-end I/O device.
>
> I disagree, most heartily. The 'actual processing' ought to be split as
> efficiently and flexibly as possible between host and desktop in
> whatever ways any individual one of the various clients and servers
> which are running are capable of benefitting from. The "merely serving
> as I/O" is quite the opposite of using a PC instead of an Xterminal. A
> great number of the capabilities that people are expecting but not
> receiving from modern technology is because software engineers can't
> seem to get their brains around smart clients WITH smart servers as the
> proper method of distribution. Almost every system concentrates on a
> smart server with a dumb client, or a dumb server with a smart client.
> For this very reason, the network bottleneck is an excessive burden.
>
> Ironically, it is because the network is a bottleneck that developers
> avoid designing systems which allow a greater level of information to be
> processed at either or both ends, and tend to keep it at one or the
> other, because of the inherent problems of performance and reliability
> in moving that greater amount of information back and forth. Yet the
> reason the network *is* a bottleneck is because such systems, which know
> how to handle data which is *either* local, *or* remote, instead of
> assuming its local (smart client) or assuming its remote (dumb client),
> aren't developed!
>
> >> purpose microcomputers as "wordprocessing and web browsing" front ends
> >> have failed. I believe this is for the simple fact that an appliance
> >> capable of doing these things in a modern business environment requires
> >> the flexibility of a general purpose microcomputer, despite the
> >> recurring fantasies that special purpose devices would somehow be more
> >> effective or feasible. I suspect this effect will continue, and they
> >
> >You're correct that those fantasies will never be fulfilled.
> >Remember Sun's experiment with "diskless" workstations?
> >AAAAAAARGH!
>
> One of my earliest experiences was actually pretty unusual (AFAIK, based
> on later observations.) PCs which had 10 Meg hard drives, and no
> floppy. The drives didn't have an OS on them, though, the PCs booted
> off of a Novell file server using boot PROMS on the Ethernet cards.
> This was used as a replacement for a Unix host system running a word
> processing application (the Novell server used Word Perfect). It was a
> dumb implementation in almost every way; the thought was that they were
> upgrading to a better wordprocessor (the Unix think used in-line control
> codes with *no* WISIWYG, didn't support any simple page layout, etc.).
> But they didn't need a word processor; they needed a document management
> system. Not only didn't they get one, but there weren't any decent DOS
> or Novell based ones at the time that could hold a candle to the Unix
> system they were replacing.
>
> [...]
> >> That "idiotic desktop anarchy" was called "the PC revolution", and it
> >> was predicated on the fact that end users are perfectly capable of both
> >> administering and operating a computer. Programming tools should be
> >
> >Operating: yes
> >Administrating: very few.
>
> Only in that your idiom expression of "administrating" goes beyond the
> requirements of administrating from the end-user's perspective. Part of
> that extension is appropriate, but part is not.
>
> [...]
> >> That is one way of putting it. But I never thought that at the time,
> >> and see no evidence for it in retrospect, either. To me, it appears
> >> that the IBM PC became a business tool to an extent that the hobbyist
> >> computers that preceded it did not because of an accident of history. It
> >> has been attributed to any number of causes, but the fact is that the
> >> IBM PC was the first truly open computer platform. IBM did not own the
> >
> >Apple ][ and ][ was just as OPEN. Peripherals proliferated.
> >And an Apple with 64k of mem was significantly cheaper than
> >a PC with 32k of mem.
>
> Peripherals aren't the issue. Clones are the issue. Publishing your
> spec is one kind of open. Not owning the spec is a different kind of
> open entirely.
In that respect, the Apple ][ and ][+ were COMPLETELY OPEN
The Manuals contained
A) An appendix with the COMPLETE *COMMENTED* Source Code (assembly)
for the ROM's
and
B) Another Appendix with a huge foldout-page with the COMPLETE
schematic diagram of the electronics.
You can't get much more open than that.
>
> [...]
> >Yes, I am well aware of this. I had initially believed that
> >Unix was pretty much supported only on DEC equipment. Then I
> >picked up "The C Programmer's Reference Manual/Guide/Book"
> >(can't remember precisely) by Ivan Boesky (Prentice Hall)
> >wirebound, yellow cover. And it listed standard data sizes
> >for int, char, etc. on several machines. I was surprised
> >to see IBM 370 and Interdata (some number) listed.
>
> Everyone was surprised; the idea that software is independent of the
> computer is a paradigm shift of great portent. We might with hindsight
> consider all sorts of metaphor and analogies, but that's just an
> accommodation of our natural expectations. The concept of software is
> *not* an intuitive one, no matter how familiar we may be with its
> affects.
>
I remember, in high school, telling my friends that someone should
make a machine with both a 6502 AND AN 8080 or Z80 chip in it, so
that the buyer could run both Apple and TRS-80 software. (since
Memory was WAY more expensive than CPU's... the 6502 was $25 of
a $2500 Apple ][ series, and the Z80 was about $100 of a $3000
TRS-80. (at that time, 16K was about $500).
Everyone said I was nuts.
Then, lo and behold, after the PC came out...
People started making "personality" cards (like Z80 card to put
in an Apple (The card slots had pin-outs for the entire range
of contacts on the 6502, thus all that was needed was a Z80
plus a ROM, and some glue-logic to interface the Z80 with
a 6502-standard bus)
And we all know about the Intel cards for Amigas and Macs.
I think someone made a Z80 card for the Commodore 64, too.
> >> The potential independence of the components, and the lack of ownership
> >> of the specification of the PC revolutionized the way computers are
> >> considered and used. Yes, anybody could own a computer before then, and
> >
> >When IBM discovered that they had lost control of the platform due
> >to cloning...they invented MicroChannel architecture. I was
> >glad to see *that* die, even though, technologically it was better,
> >it was also an attempt to bring back a proprietary standard.
>
> Yes, you see what I mean. And the market soundly rejected it for the
> most part (except for a bunch of suckers in true blue shops). Simply
> because it was a proprietary standard.
>
> Yet Microsoft's code is the same kind of proprietary standard, but
> nobody batted an eye no matter how many insane things MS did, because
> software is not an intuitive concept, even when you're familiar with it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...Contrary to the claims of Microsoft's marketing department....
>
> >The marketplace wisely ignored it (the installed ISA base was so
> >huge that it made no sense to develop an MCA card before the ISA
> >equivalent...thus adding more momentum to ISA)
>
> "Ignored" would be too strong a term. There were quite a number of MCA
> cards.
Yeah, but nobody purchased any :-)
>
> >> there was nothing preventing them from learning how to program or doing
> >> so. Nor does the PC inherently make that capability more evident.
> >> Still, the reason the open architecture of the PC had such a profound
> >> impact was that while anyone could learn to program a system prior to
> >> that point, they were learning a proprietary system over which they had
> >> no control. The non-proprietary nature of the PC platform, on the other
> >> hand, allows an end user/consumer to control their system completely, at
> >> least through the mechanism of market competition if not their own
> >> technical freedom to contribute to that market without the need for
> >> "permission" or proprietary knowledge of the developer of the system.
> >
> >Not quite. MS-DOS was proprietary.
> >It just ran on non-proprietary hardware.
>
> My comments have nothing to do with MS-DOS; as we've both mentioned, it
> is proprietary. But so was/is WordPerfect, and SoundBlaster. The PC
> was non-proprietary. It just accommodated proprietary components.
>
> [...]
> >> This is an obvious flaw in the implementation of business computers.
> >> The correction, however, is not help desk tyranny. It is, instead, to
> >
> >For example, at Kmart, there's a whole group of 15 people who do
> >nothing but test different software for Windows stability issues.
> >Due to the continuing DLL fiasco, some combinations of installed
> >software will lead to desktop crashes.
> >
> >To avoid this, they and others have implemented a "no unauthorized
> >software on *OUR* PCs" rule.
> >
> >However, iF everyone was running SCO Unix, I doubt that this ever would
> >have become an issue.
>
> Yes, but partially because you wouldn't need to implement a rule, since
> nobody would want to or be capable of installing their own software.
Of course you can. People do it on Unix all the time. They just
have to install it INSIDE their own account.
> This is a digressive response to Window's shortcomings, not to "cubical
> anarchy". If they all used Unix systems, they would be data-entry
> people, not computer operators.
>
> [...]
> >> Each of these, rather than being a devolution to anarchy, is an
> >> overthrow of tyranny, in its own way. Linux, of course, merges the
> >> three together in a unique way that re-enforces each. It will be a
> >> golden age of end-user computer, most certainly, once people are willing
> >> to step up to the plate and admit they need to learn how computers work
> >> in order to benefit from computers.
> >
> >That's the big problem. Most Americans not only are too lazy to
> >progress from ignorance...they justify it by becoming PROUD of
> >their ignorance.
>
> I'm not terribly pleased to have such a potent and noble statement
> followed by a crass and insulting disavowal of your personal
> contribution to the problem. All humans act this way, even those who
:-)
> criticize others for doing so, so its disturbing to hear emotional
> admonishments in this matter.
>
> [...]
> >I have often thought that it is quite ironic....the
> >business communities tolerance of more and more bloated MS-ware
> >has driven down the price of ridiculously high-powered equipment.
>
> Yay, Microsoft?
I can only say that personally, Microsoft has benefited me, in
a very perverse way. Their product requires a super-computer
with ungodly huge amounts of memory and disk to run properly
....and all of this hardware must be affordable....just so that
their stuff will trudge along at a barely tolerable speed.
So...when I go to the local shop, I can buy the same hardware,
and put a super-computer operating system on it...and behold,
I have world-class computing for under $1000.
I've been thinking of starting my own data-oriented business
just using home-built PC-equipment. Web-page hosting, or
something. Start-up costs are minimal, and I can do it without
even having to get out of bed!
>
> [...]
> >The Unix vendors can all justify their price for one reason:
> > THEIR SHIT WORKS!
>
> I was very distraught, last year, to find a Sun workstation (Ultra 10, I
> believe) delivered with a *completely failed* hard drive. "This shit
> isn't supposed to happen," I thought, "its as bad as a PC!"
ACK! Did they rush over immediately?
>
> One might remark that I expected, as you've indicated, that such
> failures wouldn't occur on a system that costs several times what a
> nominally equivalent PC workstation would, because it is generally true.
> But it is happening with greater and greater frequency, and is in no way
> limited to any particular issue, that the Unix world is being "infected"
> with "PCisms" in this regard. Which is, by the way, a good thing. Unix
Yeah. As time progresses, I find more and more tolerance for
absolutely lousy results. If the automakers were like this,
we'd have 1,000 traffic deaths per day PER MAJOR CITY.
I mean, can you imagine if brake systems only worked 99% of the time?
> vendors are pie-in-the-sky arrogant elitist dweebs, generally clueless
> about the real power of personal computers, and they need to realize
Quite true. I really can't see much to justify the cost of
a Sun (some_letters_go_here)10000 when the same capacity can
be met by 10 $1000 Linux boxes and with beowulf extensions.
the Nuclear people at Oak Ridge, Tennessee recently reported
that they assembled a multi-terra-FLOP computing system out
of old discarded 386, 486, and sub-100 MHz pentium machines
using beowulf.
They needed a super computer...something on the order of
a couple of crays clustered together...but they only had a
a few tens of thousands of dollars left in the budget.
So, they went out scavanging for old computers and computer
parts, put in decent hard drives and ethernet cards, and
behold...world's fastest computer system for the current
"world's biggest computing problem"... made out of "obsolete"
computer parts.
> that not every computer is "mission critical" (and if the people
> implementing the computer have a clue, no computer ever is), and we'd
> rather not pay four to ten times the price so that it "never fails",
> when any failures which do occur are not cataclysmic or frequent.
And...redundant power supplies aren't THAT expensive to make..
>
> It is the commercial Unix world which has done the majority of
I'll agree with that. Not even SCO has figured out that dropping
their price for the OS would make for MAJOR gains in sales.
> profiteering off of the technology industry, aside from Microsoft (who
> is orders of magnitude out of their league in this regard). Yes,
> they're moving more towards open software themselves, and there is
> reason and value in proprietary computer hardware platforms (despite my
> trumpeting of the open PC standard as a revolution). But this is
> *UNIX*; none of them developed the stuff to begin with. I doubt there's
> any *real* reasons why HP-UX is binary incompatible with much of Sun,
> and everything else is trivial to make easily changeable from one mode
> to another (command lines, other general attributes, for those who like
> the way one or the other does something). But have any of these vendors
> moved to promote competition by any conscious developments to enhance
> the customers ability to easily integrate or migrate between them? No,
> not to speak of.
Everyone is finally working on an open-binary standard for
Intel-type chips. I think it's because each company's sales
reps are coming back with "They love our proposal...except for
one thing...the software isn't available on our Unix"
>
> If they're in the business of selling bullet-proof hardware, then they
> should compete on how bullet-proof their hardware is, and not whether
> the Unix admins are "Sun guys" or "HP guys".
True. I try to be as flexible as possible in this regard.
>
> [...]
> >> Spoken like someone who isn't familiar with the nightmare of trying to
> >> run X-terminals. Its more efficient to allow anarchy, and clean up the
> >
> >Actually, I have. When I first worked at the GM tech center,[...]
>
> I meant in a non-glass house environment. I had assumed from your
Actually, most of my time has been in some sort of "user support"
aspect or another.
At Ford, and at a stock brokerage, there was the "glass room"
aspect (life devoted to taking care of the central servers, with
little or no contact with users...) but most of my other positions
have been very "desktop" oriented.
> earlier comment that you had some experience with the technology. But I
> will reiterate that, based on what you said, you aren't "familiar with
> the nightmare", having not experienced it in the implementation you
> dealt with. Remember, I only hear about the stuff that doesn't work so
> good; if Xterms were never a nightmare, I wouldn't know anything about
> how Xterms work. ;-)
They were. Their big problem is they tie up the network too much,
and so nobody gets anything done.
>
> >> messes when they occur, despite the fact that it causes much more
> >> grousing about "clueless users" from the desktop support people. An
> >> X-terminal, only a little smarter, is exactly what a PC is. Except it
> >> is a lot smarter, and for good reason.
> >
> >I'm saying the current usage is moving TOWARDS the X-terminal model.
> >but, instead of having the central computer drive the display with
> >commands to an X server on the desktop hardware, the desktop machine
> >has it's own "intelligent" interface.
>
> It makes more sense to adopt the ASP model (which you will think of as
> "just the X-terminal model"), but that uses a web browser instead of an
> X server. Not as demanding on the desktop, and much easier for the
> software developers.
>
> It sucks worse then X-terms, yes. But X-terms suck worse than PCs with
> real client/server software.
you've got that right.
>
> In any portion of the industry, you will see signs of moving towards or
> away from the dumb client model (the dumb server model, represented by
> file and print services, tends to remain more consistently implemented
> because of its "bedrock" nature in providing shared resources to PCs) in
> wonderfully ineffective cycles. People think they want simple and easy,
> but they really want flexible and unlimited. Until they get it, and
> then they long for simple and easy. Until they see how inflexible and
> limited it is.... Ad infinitum.
>
> >> I see your comments as little more than the last echoes of the "glass
> >> house mentality", though I don't mean to discount them by saying so. I
> >> think the recursive "terminal/diskless workstation/network PC/desktop
> >> appliance/everythings-a-web-page" issue is quite fascinating, and
> >> consider the counterpoint very important in recognizing the true value
> >> and importance of the "personal computer".
> >
> >The big problem is, most corporate end-users know just enough
> >to fiddle around and completely screw up their system.
> >
> >On Unix systems, it's no problem, because they don't have
> >admin privileges. On the M$ boxes..it's a severe problem.
>
> That's the fault of the gurus in between, the admins, who are supposed
> to be cooperating with the computer operators, not trying to control
> data entry personnel. I guess they don't teach systems people in
> college that part of their job is going to be teaching some of that
> stuff to the end users out in the real world. We trashed the glass
> house years ago: wake up and smell the coffee.
Actually, I did user support IN COLLEGE....and over 50% of my time
since then has been user-support oriented. That's why I'm so
well aware of the support requirements between Unix and Windows.
My Windows counterparts always seem to be trapped inside a
never-ending nightmare. [Most are of the opinion that "unix sucks",
but whenever they have a some weird data manipulation problem
(like, take a whole directory full of files, and re-arrange
the columns... YEAH, you can do it in a spreadsheet, but,
after about the 30th file, it starts to become a drag.
So..I say, "Ok...what do you want done with it?.. show me
the data, and show me what you want it to look like...
..OK...here, let's FTP that stuff over to my machine...
...spend a few minutes writing an awk script....
...OK... you mean like this?... yeah...OK.....here,
wait 2 minutes. Write a for-loop to run each file through
awk...Here you go man... all done.
....Uh....WOW...how'd you do that?"
You want to know how to get through to a user who keeps doing stuff
the hard way (and usually fucking everything up for himself along
the way)?
You say the magic words: "Here's a trick..."
At that point, you have their complete attention, because, in
their eyes, it is now a chance to learn a magic spell from the
wizard. :-)
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> [A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 07:30:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You cannot guarantee freedom by removing it.
The GPL provides a nice counter example.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 07:35:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Minimal encumberances are a necessary element of being "free"
>> in practice rather than merely in theory.
>>
>Your statement is literally true, but doesn't apply to the GPL, because
>it provides for MUCH WORSE than minimal encumberances. If you want
>a minimal encumberance, then precedent might suggest avoid using the
>software for causing death or destruction. In certain countries, you
>might even suggest avoiding use for creating pornography. THOSE ARE
>MINIMAL.
>
>By restricting the behavior of a normal, legal, day-to-day activity
>for a developer, YOU ARE CREATING MORE THAN MINIMAL ENCUMBERANCES.
>
>You keep ignoring the FACT of the encumberances that are stronger than
>minimal.
They are the minimal necessary to prevent slavery.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 03:49:09 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >The issue of product and services bundling was resolved
> >OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO. It's an open and shut case.
> >Microsoft's legal department must have their heads up their asses.
> >
> >DOJ's case is based on MOUNDS of precedence.
>
> You should check the last few days' posts on alt.destroy.microsoft,
> where David Petticord and I have been discussing this exact issue in a
Hmmm, that name sounds familiar... somewhere from 10+ years ago.
> great amount of detail.
>
> The problem is that the MOUNDS of precedence, which are all true and
> valid, even when applied to software, aren't *proven* to be true when
> applied to software. One of the fundamental tests for whether MS's
> actions have been illegal for thirty years (or a hundred) or whether
> they are legal, is not applicable to software. So at the very least one
> new precedence has to be set, which is, "how does software work when you
> apply the 'technical capabilities' test?"
I think it is. The "bundling" case against IBM. IBM refused
to honor their warranty for ANYTHING if the customer had even
one line of non-IBM-written code on the machine.
The final judgement was that end-user's shall not be compelled
to pay for anything which they would rather obtain through some
other method (3rd-party purchasing or contracts, or in-house
development, or even "shareware")
My source: Thomas Watson, Jr's autobiography.
Retired CEO of IBM, and son of Thomas Watson Sr. (of course),
founder of IBM.
>
> I'll summarize very briefly:
>
> All software bundling/integration can be said to provide value to the
> consumer.
> One of the applicable tests for illegal tying is whether the
> bundling/integration provides value to the consumer.
>
> On the face of it, this means that your precedent is worthless, because
> that test is the precedent. So either you say the test is not valid at
> all (which you can do, because of precedent; it is known to be valid
> unless you can prove otherwise), or you say that the test can't be
> applied to software, or you say that software bundling/integration can't
> be considered illegal tying regardless of the circumstances (or you
> define such circumstances, but that is the least likely precedent to be
> set).
Still, you can't compel a purchaser to pay for something which
he would prefer to get from another source.
>
> Because of the long history of anti-trust law and the importance of
> this, and other similar, tests in its enforcement, the Supreme Court
> will probably have to make a decision concerning this issue, as Judge
> Jackson has no ability to overthrow precedent without justification (and
> finding MS guilty is, obviously enough, not considered justification.)
>
> Note, however, that this is only one part of the case. The other, which
> established that Microsoft monopolized independently of the tying
> charge, is still considered valid by everyone but Microsoft and its most
> ardent fans, and doesn't seem to be in danger of being over-ruled.
>
> So yes, its an open and shut case, but, yes, the Supreme Court will have
> to at least take a look at it before it can be considered "over".
>
> Obviously not a defense of the Microsoft troll who posted that this case
> concerns whether you can or "can't have a Internet browsing in a
> sufficiently popular desktop OS?" But hopefully it was educational and
> interesting to those with more than one tenth of a brain.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> [A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
