Linux-Advocacy Digest #616, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 12:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Craig Kelley)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Windows98 (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! ("James")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:18:29 -0400
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 10 Jul 2000
>>>> X wouldn't exist at all if it had to be GPL'd. Nor would most
>>>> of the things that use it.
>>> It seems reasonable to assume that no software would exist if it *had*
>>> to be GPL'd. Nevertheless, indications are strong that someday, almost
>>> all software will be voluntarily GPL'd.
>> I don't think you're right. If, instead, you say 'almost all software
>> will be open sourced,' I can agree. I can't agree that they will be
>> GPLed.
> If almost all software is open source, then there's no reason for it not
> to be GPLd.
There's plenty of reasons to avoid the GPL, even if almost all software
is open source. Your assumption that there isn't a reason is false.
> And since the GPL does, indeed, have the effect of
> extending the GPL, it stands to reason that unless specifically
> prevented from doing so, software will be practically all open source
> (because its copyrighted) and GPL (because its software, not
> literature).
The relevancy of this?
> Last years literature is still literature. Last years
> source is useless bytes. Which means there will always be a huge market
> for production, distribution, and maintenance of (but no market
> whatsoever for ownership of) software.
When you say this, you demonstrate that you haven't the faintest clue
about the realities of software development. There will *always* be a
market for ownership of software, since it is *that* which provides the
vast majority of the funds for the production and maintenance of
software. For your delusional fantasy to become anything close to
reality, then software will have to *stop* being a competitive
advantage. Which won't happen.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:16:51 -0400
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Now as for the Linux desktop! The linux desktop is about personal
> > CHOICE.
> > I run windows 98 in a dual boot system. I use it for what its good at.
> >
> > GAMES
>
> Choice of two unfinished desktops or six minimalist ones. Some choice.
>
> And there are so many more games for Windows than there are for
> Linux, aren't there?
>
> > Nothing else. If I want to send personal mail I use Netscape under
> > LINUX.
>
> I have Netscape on Windows too. Looks a lot better than the same version
> on Linux. If I wanted to, I could use Netscape for EMail on Windows.
so..what you're saying is... minor aesthetic details FAR outweight
the superior functionality of unix.
And you wonder why people think that you're not all there...
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 12 Jul 2000 08:45:10 -0600
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've always maintained what is obvious: Netcraft JUST counts domains and
> doesn't discriminate between a linux/apache domain of "joesmomma.com" vs
[snippage]
> http://www.entmag.com/displayarticle.asp?searchresult=1&ID=6150095626AM
>
> "The dominant position of Microsoft's proprietary IIS in the Fortune 500
> makes Windows NT a lock for the most used operating system undergirding the
> Web servers -- 43 percent. "
And a Windows NT advocate magazine is unbiased?
Fortune 500 companies have money to burn; of course they don't realize
one of the key benefits of open source.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:24:16 -0400
James wrote:
>
> Aaron,
>
> That was really a risky thing to do. Replacing ALL configuration
> information on a system. The equivalent will upset any OS !!! Wonder what
We do it on Unix all the time.
If you have a catastrophic failure of the root drive...load up a
minimal installation of the OS. Then, get out the backup tapes,
and reload your last FULL BACKUP (which, of course, replaces ALL
configuration information on the system)...then, restore from
whatever incremental backups are necessary to bring you back up
to the moset recent backup tape.
Next: reboot system, and HEY, you're right back at wherever you
were when the last backup was executed.
> the guys in this NG would have had to say if the roles were reversed. I.e.
> if someone complained that his Linux/Unix/whatever box was not working
> properly after giving it a frontal lobotomy :-)
Standard recovery procedure on Unix and most other operating systems.
Here's a quarter kid--go buy yourself a clue.
>
> Anyway, if you must run a MS OS, why don't you use W2k? And run as
> non-administrator. Then these things won't happen to you.
I suppose W2K doesn't crash, just like MS claimed Lose3.1 didn't crash
(until Lose95 was on the market)...which of course..NEVER crashed,
until Lose98 was on the market....which of course, NEVER crashed
until a couple months ago.
With a track record like that, why should anybody spend the money
for a company which is well-known for not admitting that their
software is bug-infested crap?
>
> James
>
> "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Pete. Your posts about how Linux lags behind Windows are amusing to me.
> > Here's a little story about how Windows crapped out on me last night,
> > and how Linux rescued me. Windows could have never done this.
> >
> > I have a dual boot system, Win98 and Mandrake 7.1. Last night, I
> > decided to restore my Windows registry from a master backup to improve
> > the sludgy performance that I've been seeing lately. According to the
> > online help that came with my NEC computer, this would simply require
> > a few reloads of applications. Like an idiot, I chose to believe
> > it...
> >
> > Anyway, I rebooted and began to restore my drivers. I came to my 3COM
> > NIC driver and reinstalled it. What I forgot was that I had added this
> > NIC myself; it didn't come with the computer. You can probably guess
> > what happened next...
> >
> > I rebooted and was greeted with an Explorer page fault violation. My
> > Windows partition is currently worthless now because I reinstalled a
> > driver! The problem was that I had upgraded to IE 5.0 after I had
> > added the NIC. Apparently, there is a dll conflict between these.
> >
> > I hadn't told my wife that I was "fixing" the computer, so when she
> > found out she couldn't get to her mail, she was a little annoyed! :)
> > Anyway, I created her an account on my Linux partition, mounted the
> > windows partition as a vfat drive, and copied all her Windows mail
> > over to her new Linux account. Voila! It worked perfectly! She can
> > read all her old mail and send mail just like she did under Windows.
> > This gives me a few days breathing room! ;-)
> >
> > There is no way Windows could have done this. First of all, Linux
> > would never render a computer unbootable because I reinstalled a
> > driver. Secondly, Windows would never be able to read an ext2
> > partition the way Linux can read FAT32.
> >
> > So Pete, when you say Linux lags behind Windows, I can't help but
> > laugh. Linux is so incredibly versitile that to compare it to a
> > toy OS like Win9X is simply ludicrous to me. Perhaps Windows is
> > better for you, as it is for many people. But when you claim that
> > Linux is somehow inferior to Windows, be aware that you are referring
> > to yourself only. There are very few computer-literate people who
> > would agree with you.
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> > --
> > Aaron J. Ginn Motorola SPS
> > Phone: (480) 814-4463 SemiCustom Solutions
> > Fax: (480) 814-4058 1300 N. Alma School Rd.
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chandler, AZ 85226
--
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:46:55 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 12 Jul 2000 12:20:33 GMT...
...and Paul Colclough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >>KDE/Gnome/or whatever window manager) and other programs you install.
> >>You don't
> >> see many Windows programs installing themselves into c:\windows\system
> >> now do you? They all install neatly into c:\program files\ and you can
> >> pretty much find an installed program living in there in some
> >> sub-directory.
> >
> >Would this be why so many computers have about four copies of MS Office
> >on the hard drive? They started with Office 95 (installed to
>
> Well, at least there are in three seperate directories, rather than all
> being placed in /usr/bin with three slightly different executables that
> would be a nightmare to remove without the help of RPM.
So what? People who are knowledgeable enough to install and remove
software without RPM should be able to know which file is what.
Anyway, something as large as an office suite usually installs in
/opt.
mawa
--
Wenn die Wochentage L�nder w�ren...
...dann w�re der Samstag Jamaika.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:26:37 -0400
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> GPL restrictions are only a problem for software *exploiters*; they
> don't cause any severe burden on software *developers*, and they cause
> no burden whatsoever on end users. No wonder you guys are scared. You
> must be exploiters. And the GPL is actively and intentionally hostile
> to you. Unapologetically.
Max, you don't know the first fucking thing you're talking about. I'm sorry
that it's taken me so long to realise it.
If you haven't recognised it yet, the -exploiters- are not those who
wish to make derivative works. They are the distributers. Under the
GPL, the distributers have *all* the cards and the developers have
effectively *zero*.
You obviously do not value software, nor do you care enough to think of the
livelihood of those who produce it.
Fuck off.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:30:34 -0400
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
> [...]
>>>> You know, MS is not in it for the computer theory implications.
>>> They ain't in it for the benefit to the consumer, either.
>> Of course not. You say it like they should be!
>> MS is in it to make money.
>> Red Hat is in it to make money.
>> Conectiva (my employer) is in it to make money.
>> The FSF is in it for politics.
> Why do people seem to have a tendency to repeat this over and over?
> Don't they realize that is most of the reason why it is true?
>
> No, MS is not in "it" to make money. They (being a legal corporate
> entity, not its stockholders) are in it to fulfil their charter filed
> with the government to bring this entity into existence. That charter
> was "to make software", not "to make money". The corporation is allowed
> to sell stock in open auction in order to raise capital. It is also
> allowed to make profit on the software it produces in order to grow and
> provide a dividend to the investors. It is not a free-floating greed
> which "is a 'natural person' according to the Supreme Court" and such
> nonsense, which exists in order to accumulate wealth for itself.
*snort*
Just what are you smoking?
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:29:29 -0400
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> On 10 Jul 2000 15:20:27 -0700, Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I have a dual boot system, Win98 and Mandrake 7.1. Last night, I
> >decided to restore my Windows registry from a master backup to improve
> >the sludgy performance that I've been seeing lately. According to the
> >online help that came with my NEC computer, this would simply require
> >a few reloads of applications. Like an idiot, I chose to believe
> >it...
>
> I assume you mean some sort of restore disk which in most cases simply
> images a default install onto your hard drive. Any hardware you added
> yourself woudln't be part of the image.
>
> Say for example you had added an ATA66 card into your system and a new
> hard drive. Ghosting an old version of Linux with out drivers would
> fail too.
Are you implying that Aaron Ginn doesn't realize that a backup
created on Monday won't account for modifications made on Wednesday?
--
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: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:38:59 -0400
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
> [...]
>>> Mike, for the argument 'does a free man not have restrictions' to be
>>> understood , one has to assume that software can metaphorically be
>>> placed in the role of a sentient, animate, person. Austin's very clumsy
>>> reply was meant to question whether this is valid. He is apparently
>>> unaware that one can substitute anything for anything else in a
>>> metaphor, as that is what a metaphor is.
>> Excuse you *very* much, but this is not true (and I say this as someone
>> who is, first and foremost, an expert on the language more than
>> computing). If the metaphor is meaningless -- as Mike's attempt at
>> metaphor was -- then it's not useful. If you're attempting to make a
>> metaphor including slavery, then you have to deal with the same class
>> of things as you're attempting to make a metaphor for, or you have to
>> adjust your metaphor such that it properly deals with the alternate
>> class.
> I hate to seem to trump your self-avowed expert on the language, but my
> web-based dictionary disagrees with you:
Which one is that?
> metaphor [Gr.,=transfer], in rhetoric, a figure of speech
> in which one class of things is referred to as if
> it belonged to another class.
Consider this (www.m-w.com):
metaphor [Middle French or Latin; Middle French metaphore, from Latin
metaphora, from Greek, from metapherein to transfer, from meta- +
pherein to bear -- more at BEAR, 1533]
1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting
one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to
suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in
money); broadly : figurative language -- compare SIMILE
2 : an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor : SYMBOL 2
Note that: 'kind of *object or idea*'; in the exmample given ('drowning
in money'), two objects are swapped for the metaphor, but they are both
of the same animate/inanimate class. You cannot make such an animate/
inanimate swap as you and Mike pretend are possible, and have a
meaningful metaphor. At best, it's a mixed metaphor.
> I don't see anything in there about some method of determining whether
> it is "meaningless", apart from the implied "whether you agree with it".
Mixed metaphors are meaningless. Attempting to do an animate/inanimate
metaphor (or even worse, an object-person metaphor) is mixed, and is
therefore meaningless.
Not that you apparently understand this, fool.
>> Only animates can be enslaved (and, specifically, only sentients can be
>> enslaved).
> And thus, in the metaphor, you are expected to pretend, for rhetorical
> purposes, that software can be enslaved, which is to say, is animate.
Which makes it mixed, and therefore meaningless. Because software *is
not* animate, it cannot be enslaved, and any attempt at pretending that
it can is doomed to failure.
(Not that you have a fucking clue about this, fool.)
>>> Austin; obviously software can't be enslaved, except metaphorically.
>>> And that, of course, is precisely the connotation that is being used.
>>> Can an animal be enslaved? Can an animal be free?
>> Which means that it's a useless metaphor and accomplishes nothing but
>> raising the general stupidity of the debate as people have to refute
>> idiotic metaphors.
> It is difficult to argue with a compelling metaphor, that is true.
Except that the metaphor is mixed, and therefore utterly useless. Like your
own fevered rantings.
Stop pretending you have a clue. You don't.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:43:23 +0200
Aaron,
The fact is that W2k has yet to crash on me in about 5 months of use at work
and at home. That is adequately reliable for me (as a desktop).
James
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> James wrote:
> >
> > Aaron,
> >
> > That was really a risky thing to do. Replacing ALL configuration
> > information on a system. The equivalent will upset any OS !!! Wonder
what
>
> We do it on Unix all the time.
>
> If you have a catastrophic failure of the root drive...load up a
> minimal installation of the OS. Then, get out the backup tapes,
> and reload your last FULL BACKUP (which, of course, replaces ALL
> configuration information on the system)...then, restore from
> whatever incremental backups are necessary to bring you back up
> to the moset recent backup tape.
>
> Next: reboot system, and HEY, you're right back at wherever you
> were when the last backup was executed.
>
>
> > the guys in this NG would have had to say if the roles were reversed.
I.e.
> > if someone complained that his Linux/Unix/whatever box was not working
> > properly after giving it a frontal lobotomy :-)
>
> Standard recovery procedure on Unix and most other operating systems.
> Here's a quarter kid--go buy yourself a clue.
>
>
> >
> > Anyway, if you must run a MS OS, why don't you use W2k? And run as
> > non-administrator. Then these things won't happen to you.
>
> I suppose W2K doesn't crash, just like MS claimed Lose3.1 didn't crash
> (until Lose95 was on the market)...which of course..NEVER crashed,
> until Lose98 was on the market....which of course, NEVER crashed
> until a couple months ago.
>
> With a track record like that, why should anybody spend the money
> for a company which is well-known for not admitting that their
> software is bug-infested crap?
>
>
> >
> > James
> >
> > "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Pete. Your posts about how Linux lags behind Windows are amusing to
me.
> > > Here's a little story about how Windows crapped out on me last night,
> > > and how Linux rescued me. Windows could have never done this.
> > >
> > > I have a dual boot system, Win98 and Mandrake 7.1. Last night, I
> > > decided to restore my Windows registry from a master backup to improve
> > > the sludgy performance that I've been seeing lately. According to the
> > > online help that came with my NEC computer, this would simply require
> > > a few reloads of applications. Like an idiot, I chose to believe
> > > it...
> > >
> > > Anyway, I rebooted and began to restore my drivers. I came to my 3COM
> > > NIC driver and reinstalled it. What I forgot was that I had added
this
> > > NIC myself; it didn't come with the computer. You can probably guess
> > > what happened next...
> > >
> > > I rebooted and was greeted with an Explorer page fault violation. My
> > > Windows partition is currently worthless now because I reinstalled a
> > > driver! The problem was that I had upgraded to IE 5.0 after I had
> > > added the NIC. Apparently, there is a dll conflict between these.
> > >
> > > I hadn't told my wife that I was "fixing" the computer, so when she
> > > found out she couldn't get to her mail, she was a little annoyed! :)
> > > Anyway, I created her an account on my Linux partition, mounted the
> > > windows partition as a vfat drive, and copied all her Windows mail
> > > over to her new Linux account. Voila! It worked perfectly! She can
> > > read all her old mail and send mail just like she did under Windows.
> > > This gives me a few days breathing room! ;-)
> > >
> > > There is no way Windows could have done this. First of all, Linux
> > > would never render a computer unbootable because I reinstalled a
> > > driver. Secondly, Windows would never be able to read an ext2
> > > partition the way Linux can read FAT32.
> > >
> > > So Pete, when you say Linux lags behind Windows, I can't help but
> > > laugh. Linux is so incredibly versitile that to compare it to a
> > > toy OS like Win9X is simply ludicrous to me. Perhaps Windows is
> > > better for you, as it is for many people. But when you claim that
> > > Linux is somehow inferior to Windows, be aware that you are referring
> > > to yourself only. There are very few computer-literate people who
> > > would agree with you.
> > >
> > > Aaron
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron J. Ginn Motorola SPS
> > > Phone: (480) 814-4463 SemiCustom Solutions
> > > Fax: (480) 814-4058 1300 N. Alma School Rd.
> > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chandler, AZ 85226
>
> --
> 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: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:45:57 -0400
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
> [...]
>> Ok, after he explains, tell him that in your opinion, the SCSL is free,
>> and continue referring to software licensed under the SCSL as free
>> software. I bet you $10 that each time you do, he will interrupt you.
> If I new what SCSL was, and understood the example, I might very well
> refrain from doing as you suggest, because I suspect I would agree with
> him.
You'd have a lot more credibility if:
1. You bothered to look beyond the GPL to understand what the open
source community is REALLY like, as well as what companies who are
embracing open source but not the stupidity of the GPL are
doing...
2. You stopped saying stupid things.
3. You had the first clue as to what software development involves.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
